Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-03-17 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers March 17, 2014 6:00 PM 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 17, 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 6:00-7:00 P.M. 1. The National Citizen Survey 2013 2. City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Performance Report (formerly the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report) and Citizen Centric Report AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION BOARD MEETING AND THEN RE-ADJOURN AS THE COUNCIL Special Orders of the Day 7:10-7:30 P.M. 3. Proclamation for Tsuchiura Students Visit to Palo Alto and Introduction of Marathon Runner for the 24th Kasumigaura Marathon 2 March 17, 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. 4. In Recognition of Valuable Contribution to Four Aspiring Journalists at Jordan Middle School for Producing a Video to Solicit and Encourage Input From the Community on Palo Alto's Core Values Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:30-7:40 P.M. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 7:40-7:55 P.M. Oral Communications 7:55-8:10 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. Minutes Approval 8:10-8:15 P.M. January 27, 2014 February 1, 2014 February 3, 2014 Consent Calendar 8:15-8:20 P.M. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5. Cancellation of April 14, 2014 Council meeting 6. Approval of the Acceptance and Expenditure of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds on Various Law Enforcement Equipment and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund 7. Revenue Agreement with the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless 8. Recommendation to Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Design of the Scott Park Capital Improvement Project 9. Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000 3 March 17, 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. 10. Approval of Seven On-Call Planning and Environmental Consulting Services Contracts and Amendment of One On-Call Planning Contract for the Department of Planning and Community Environment to Support Routine Current Planning Activities, Special Projects, and Environmental Review for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $931,998 11. Approval to Extend CALNET2 State Contract with AT&T for Telecommunications in an Amount Not to Exceed $400,000 Annually, Contract: C10133753 12. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with Genuent USA, LLC for IT Staff Augmentation in an Amount to Not Exceed $350,000 13. Approval of a Contract with Canopy for a Three-Year Period Not to Exceed $354,630 for Assistance with Urban Forestry Programs and Community Outreach Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:20-9:20 P.M. 14. Comprehensive Plan Update – Review of Revised Approach, Schedule, Scope of Work, Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract C08125506 with The Planning Center | DCE in the amount of $597,206 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $200,000 for Consultant Support Related to the Ongoing Update of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan for the Future of Our City (Continued from March 3, 2014) 9:20-9:50 P.M. 15. From Policy and Services Committee Staff Requests Direction From Council on the Naming of the Main Library (Continued from March 3, 2014) 9:50-10:05 P.M. 16. Adoption of Resolution Approving a New Memorandum of Agreement with Service Employees' International Union Local 521 and Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations 4 March 17, 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. Closed Session 10:05-10:35 P.M. 17. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Joe Saccio, Hillary Gitelman, Aaron Aknin, Meg Monroe, Molly Stump, Cara Silver Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office Under Negotiation: Purchase and Lease-back, Price and Terms of Payment 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 17, 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 Public Improvement Corporation Meeting Mar. 17, 2014 Finance Committee Meeting Mar. 18, 2014 City/ School Committee Meeting Mar. 20, 2014 Storm Drain Oversight Committee Meeting Mar. 26, 2014 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Report for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2014 Report on Surplus Property Donated to Nonprofit Organizations and Contributions to the City from Those Nonprofit Organizations City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Third Quarter Sales (July- September 2013) Board and Commission Recruitment Flyer Taxi Cab Hearings Flyer Public Letters to Council Set One CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR March 17, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California The National Citizen Survey 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. This document includes four reports: 1) Results, 2) Benchmark Report, 3) Geographic Subgroup Comparisons Report, and 4) Trend Report. The newly issued Trend Report highlights changes that are notable from 2003 to 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: The National Citizen Survey 2013 (PDF) Department Head: Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor Page 2 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001133 Attachment A Attachment A 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001133 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n te r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Survey Background ........................................................................................................... 1 About The National Citizen Survey™ .......................................................................................... 1 Understanding the Results .......................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 Community Ratings .......................................................................................................... 7 Overall Community Quality ....................................................................................................... 7 Community Design .................................................................................................................... 9 Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 9 Housing ............................................................................................................................. 12 Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................................................... 14 Economic Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 17 Public Safety ............................................................................................................................ 20 Environmental Sustainability .................................................................................................... 24 Recreation and Wellness .......................................................................................................... 26 Parks and Recreation .......................................................................................................... 26 Culture, Arts and Education................................................................................................ 28 Health and Wellness .......................................................................................................... 30 Community Inclusiveness ........................................................................................................ 31 Civic Engagement .................................................................................................................... 33 Civic Activity ...................................................................................................................... 33 Information and Awareness ................................................................................................ 36 Social Engagement ............................................................................................................. 37 Public Trust .............................................................................................................................. 38 City of Palo Alto Employees ............................................................................................... 40 From Data to Action ....................................................................................................... 42 Resident Priorities .................................................................................................................... 42 City of Palo Alto Action Chart™ ................................................................................................ 43 Using Your Action Chart™ .................................................................................................. 45 Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies ..................................................................... 47 Frequencies Excluding “Don’t Know” Responses ..................................................................... 47 Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses...................................................................... 58 Appendix B: Survey Methodology................................................................................... 73 Appendix C: Survey Materials ......................................................................................... 83 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 SS uu rr vv ee yy BB aa cc kkgg rr oo uu nn dd AABB OOUUTT TT HH EE NN AATT IIOONNAA LL CCII TTII ZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making. FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ METHODS AND GOALS The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were measured in the survey. Assessment Goals Assessment Methods Survey Objectives • Multi-contact mailed survey • Representative sample of 1,200 households • 337 surveys returned; 29% response rate • 5% margin of error • Data statistically weighted to reflect population Immediate • Provide useful information for: • Planning • Resource allocation • Performance measurement • Program and policy evaluation • Identify community strengths and weaknesses • Identify service strengths and weaknesses Long-term • Improved services • More civic engagement • Better community quality of life • Stronger public trust Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ FOCUS AREAS The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- addressed and postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 337 completed surveys were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 29%. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for the City of Palo Alto was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community issues and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also augmented The National Citizen Survey™ basic service through a variety of options including geographic crosstabulation of results. CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY QQUUAALLIITTYY Quality of life Quality of neighborhood Place to live CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEESSIIGGNN Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and retail, City as a place to work PPUUBBLLIICC SSAAFFEETTYY Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police, fire, EMS services Emergency preparedness EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas Garbage and recycling services RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD WWEELLLLNNEESSSS Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools Health and Wellness Availability of food, health services, social services CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY IINNCCLLUUSSIIVVEENNEESSSS Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance Senior, youth and low-income services CCIIVVIICC EENNGGAAGGEEMMEENNTT Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events Information and Awareness Public information, publications, Web site PPUUBBLLIICC TTRRUUSSTT Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement Employees Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 UU NN DD EE RRSSTT AA NN DD IINNGG TTHHEE RR EE SS UU LL TTSS As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents’ opinions about eight larger categories: community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability, recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust. Each report section begins with residents’ ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents’ ratings of service quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or community feature as “excellent” or “good” is presented. To see the full set of responses for each question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies. MM aa rr ggii nn ooff EE rrrroo rr The margin of error around results for the City of Palo Alto Survey (337 completed surveys) is plus or minus five percentage points. This is a measure of the precision of your results; a larger number of completed surveys gives a smaller (more precise) margin of error, while a smaller number of surveys yields a larger margin of error. With your margin of error, you may conclude that when 60% of survey respondents report that a particular service is “excellent” or “good,” somewhere between 55-65% of all residents are likely to feel that way. CCoomm ppaarr ii nngg SSuurr vv ee yy RReess uull ttss Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in the City of Palo Alto, but from City of Palo Alto services to services like them provided by other jurisdictions. IInn tt ee rrpprr ee ttiinngg CCoommpp aa rr ii ssoo nn ss tt oo PP rreevviioo uu ss YY ee aa rrss This report contains comparisons with prior years’ results. In this report, we are comparing this year’s data with existing data in the graphs. Differences between years can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than eight percentage points. Trend data for your jurisdiction represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. BBeenn cc hh mm aa rrkk CC oomm ppaarr ii ssoonn ss NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem). In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark. ““DD oonn ’’tt KK nnoo ww ”” RR ee sspp oonnss ee ss aanndd RRoo uu nnddiinn gg On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B: Survey Methodology. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 EE xx ee cc uu tt ii vv ee SS uu mm mm aa rryy This report of the City of Palo Alto survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long-term success. Most residents experienced a good quality of life in the City of Palo Alto and believed the City was a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 91% of respondents. Almost all reported they plan on staying in the City of Palo Alto for the next five years. A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study. The three characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were the overall image or reputation of Palo Alto, educational opportunities and the overall appearance of Palo Alto. The three characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were the availability of affordable quality child care, the variety of housing options and the availability of affordable quality housing. Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 31 characteristics for which comparisons were available, 21 were above the national benchmark comparison, two were similar to the national benchmark comparison and eight were below. Residents in the City of Palo Alto were somewhat civically engaged. While only 28% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 92% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. Half had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the City of Palo Alto, which was higher than the benchmark. In general, survey respondents demonstrated mild trust in local government. A majority rated the overall direction being taken by the City of Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent.” This was lower than the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of Palo Alto in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. More than three-quarters rated their overall impression of employees as “excellent” or “good.” On average, residents gave generally favorable ratings to most local government services. City services rated were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 31 services for which comparisons were available, 21 were above the benchmark comparison, eight were similar to the benchmark comparison and two were below. Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they participated in various activities in Palo Alto. The most popular activities included recycling and visiting a neighborhood park or City park; while the least popular activities were attending or watching a meeting of local elected officials. Generally, participation rates in the various activities in the community were higher than other communities. Compared to the 2012 survey, service ratings decreased for bus or transit services, the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto, and land use, planning and zoning. Some community feature ratings also declined, such as safety after dark in neighborhoods and downtown, Palo Alto as a place to retire and opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual activities. On a more positive note, ratings for participants personal economic future being seen as “very” or “somewhat” positive hit an all-time high of 33% in 2013, a rating that was much above the benchmark. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Palo Alto which examined the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s services overall. Those key driver services that correlated most strongly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were: Public information services Public schools Sidewalk maintenance Street lighting Of the above services, the City may wish to focus most on improving sidewalk maintenance since the City ranked similar to the benchmark in this area, not above, as with the other three service areas. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 CC oo mm mm uu nn ii tt yy RR aa tt ii nn gg ss OOVV EE RR AA LL LL CCOO MM MMUUNNII TTYY QQUUAALL IITTYY Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National Citizen Survey™ contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of Palo Alto – not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents’ commitment to the City of Palo Alto. Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Palo Alto to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto offers services and amenities that work. Almost all of the City of Palo Alto’s residents gave high ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further, most reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years. FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEAR 92%93%90%92%94%91%93%94%92%94%91% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent rating overall quality of life as "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 4: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 91% 94% 92% 90% 93% 92% Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 90% 90% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 88% Palo Alto as a place to live 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95% Percent "excellent" or "good" Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 FIGURE 5: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 89% 92% 91% 90% 90% 91% 100% NA NA NA NA Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 87% 87% 87% 83% 87% 85% 80% NA NA NA NA Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely FIGURE 6: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto Much above Your neighborhood as place to live Much above Palo Alto as a place to live Much above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks Similar Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 CCOO MM MMUUNNII TTYY DDEESSII GG NN TT rraann ssppoo rrttaatt ii oo nn The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Residents responding to the survey were given a list of seven aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and “poor.” Ease of walking was given the most positive rating, followed by ease of bicycle travel. These ratings tended to be higher than the benchmark and similar to years past. FIGURE 7: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 55% 51% 62% 66% 65% 60% 65% 60% 61% 52% 55% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 37% 42% 37% 39% 36% 34% 37% 44% 44% 43% 41% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 65% 71% 64% 62% 63% 52% 55% 60% 69% 64% NA Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 78% 81% 77% 81% 79% 78% 84% 78% 79% 80% 84% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 84% 82% 83% 85% 82% 86% 88% 87% 86% 85% 86% Availability of paths and walking trails 71% 77% 75% 75% 75% 74% NA NA NA NA NA Traffic flow on major streets 34% 36% 40% 47% 46% 38% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 8: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ease of car travel in Palo Alto Below Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto Below Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto Much above Ease of walking in Palo Alto Much above Availability of paths and walking trails Much above Traffic flow on major streets Much below Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Seven transportation services were rated in Palo Alto. As experienced in most communities across America, ratings tended to be a mix of positive and negative. Street cleaning and street lighting were above the benchmark, bus or transit services and the amount of public parking were below the benchmark and street repair, sidewalk maintenance and traffic signal timing were similar to the benchmark. FIGURE 9: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Street repair 47% 42% 40% 43% 42% 47% 47% 47% 48% 47% 50% Street cleaning 76% 80% 79% 76% 73% 75% 77% 77% 74% 77% 75% Street lighting 66% 68% 65% 68% 64% 64% 61% 66% 63% 65% 67% Sidewalk maintenance 56% 53% 51% 51% 53% 53% 57% 53% 51% 50% 50% Traffic signal timing 53% 47% 52% 56% 56% 56% 60% 55% 49% 57% NA Bus or transit services 49% 58% 46% 45% 50% 49% 57% 58% NA NA NA Amount of public parking 39% 51% 54% 60% 55% 52% 65% 58% 56% 56% NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 10: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Street repair Similar Street cleaning Much above Street lighting Above Sidewalk maintenance Similar Traffic signal timing Similar Bus or transit services Below Amount of public parking Below Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 28%30%34%32%28%33%31%31%28%35%34% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 12: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto Much more By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single-occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single-occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use. However, 7% of work commute trips were made by transit, 11% by bicycle and 6% by foot. FIGURE 13: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 55% 55% 63% 61% 58% 59% NA NA NA NA NA Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 11% 5% 9% 9% 8% 6% NA NA NA NA NA Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 7% 5% 3% 3% 7% 5% NA NA NA NA NA Walk 6% 6% 6% 5% 7% 4% NA NA NA NA NA Bicycle 11% 20% 11% 13% 9% 16% NA NA NA NA NA Work at home 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 9% NA NA NA NA NA Other 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA FIGURE 14: DRIVE ALONE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone Much less Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 HH oo uuss iinn gg Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single group, often well-off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities – police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower income residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business. The survey of the City of Palo Alto residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 13% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 26% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was much worse in the City of Palo Alto than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 15: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality housing 13% 12% 14% 15% 17% 12% 10% 11% 8% 7% 6% Variety of housing options 26% 29% 37% 37% 39% 34% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 16: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing Much below Variety of housing options Much below Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Palo Alto, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents’ reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the City of Palo Alto experiencing housing cost stress. About one-third of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income. FIGURE 17: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCING HOUSING COST STRESS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Housing costs 30% or more of income 31% 29% 36% 34% 35% 31% NA NA NA NA NA Percent of respondents FIGURE 18: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) Less Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 LL aa nndd UU ssee aanndd ZZoo nn ii nn gg Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community’s overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well-planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the City of Palo Alto and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” by 12% of respondents and as “good” by an additional 32%. The overall appearance of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 85% of respondents and was much higher than the benchmark. When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the City of Palo Alto, 4% thought they were a “major” problem. The services of code enforcement and animal control were rated above the benchmark and the service of land use, planning and zoning was rated below the benchmark. Compared to the previous survey, ratings decreased for the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto and for land use, planning and zoning. FIGURE 19: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 44% 56% 57% 53% 55% 57% 57% 62% 56% NA NA Overall appearance of Palo Alto 85% 89% 89% 83% 83% 89% 86% 85% 85% 86% 87% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 20: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Palo Alto Much below Overall appearance of Palo Alto Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 FIGURE 21: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR 40%39% 49%44% 55%51%54%49%50%46% 60% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent rating population growth as "too fast" FIGURE 22: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast Much more FIGURE 23: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS BY YEAR 4%2%4%4%2%3%4%3%2%3%4% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent rating run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles as a "major" problem FIGURE 24: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem Much less Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 FIGURE 25: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Land use, planning and zoning 36% 51% 45% 49% 47% 47% 49% 50% 46% 48% 41% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 57% 61% 56% 53% 50% 59% 59% 61% 56% 59% 55% Animal control 76% 78% 72% 76% 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% 79% 79% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 26: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Much below Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Above Animal control Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 EECC OO NN OOMMII CC SS UU SS TTAAII NN AA BB IILLII TTYY The United States has been in recession since late 2007 with an accelerated downturn occurring in the fourth quarter of 2008. Officially we emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, but high unemployment lingers, keeping a lid on a strong recovery. Many readers worry that the ill health of the economy will color how residents perceive their environment and the services that local government delivers. NRC researchers have found that the economic downturn has chastened Americans’ view of their own economic futures but has not colored their perspectives about community services or quality of life. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were Palo Alto as a place to work and shopping opportunities. Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities. FIGURE 27: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Employment opportunities 68% 68% 56% 52% 51% 61% 61% 59% 45% 43% 33% Shopping opportunities 73% 69% 71% 70% 70% 71% 79% 80% 75% NA NA Palo Alto as a place to work 89% 88% 89% 87% 87% 90% 90% 84% 81% NA NA Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 71% 79% 74% 75% 73% 77% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 28: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities Much above Shopping opportunities Much above Palo Alto as a place to work Much above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of jobs growth and retail growth on a scale from “much too slow” to “much too fast.” When asked about the rate of jobs growth in Palo Alto, 30% responded that it was “too slow,” while 16% reported retail growth as “too slow.” Fewer residents in Palo Alto compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth and jobs growth were too slow. FIGURE 29: RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Retail growth seen as too slow 16% 19% 35% 31% 34% 28% 29% 26% 25% 21% 18% Jobs growth seen as too slow 30% 44% 64% 67% 65% 48% 38% 49% 63% 69% 76% Percent of respondents FIGURE 30: RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow Much less Jobs growth seen as too slow Much less FIGURE 31: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 48% 58%55%61%62%63% 54%49%52% 67%61% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 32: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Economic development Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Thirty-three percent of the City of Palo Alto residents expected that the coming six months would have a “somewhat” or “very” positive impact on their family. The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was much greater than comparison jurisdictions and has increased steadily since 2011. FIGURE 33: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BY YEAR 26%28% 21%27%26% 5% 13%16%12% 22% 33% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent "very" or "somewhat" positive FIGURE 34: PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 20 PP UU BB LL IICC SSAA FF EE TT YY Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards. Communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to experience growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers. Most gave positive ratings of safety in the City of Palo Alto. About 79% of those completing the questionnaire said they felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from violent crimes and 83% felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety. Compared to the 2012 survey, ratings for safety after dark in neighborhoods and downtown have decreased. FIGURE 35: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Safety in your neighborhood during the day 97% 96% 98% 96% 95% 95% 98% 94% 98% 98% 97% Safety in your neighborhood after dark 72% 82% 83% 83% 78% 78% 85% 79% 84% 82% 83% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 93% 92% 91% 94% 91% 96% 94% 91% 96% 94% 95% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 62% 71% 65% 70% 65% 65% 74% 69% 69% 76% 71% Safety from violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 79% 87% 85% 85% 82% 85% 86% 75% 87% 84% 84% Safety from property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 59% 61% 71% 75% 66% 74% 75% 62% 76% 71% 73% Safety from environmental hazards 83% 81% 84% 83% 81% 80% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 FIGURE 36: COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day Above In your neighborhood after dark Similar In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day Above In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark Similar Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Above Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Similar Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Above As assessed by the survey, 6% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 86% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions fewer Palo Alto residents had been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and more of Palo Alto residents had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police. FIGURE 37: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 6% 9% 9% 9% 11% 10% 9% 12% 10% 11% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 86% 62% 71% 86% 80% 73% 62% 62% 69% 62% 80% Percent "yes" FIGURE 38: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime Less Reported crimes More Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Residents rated seven City public safety services; of these, five were rated above the benchmark comparison, two were rated similar to the benchmark comparison and none were rated below the benchmark comparison. Fire services and ambulance or emergency medical services received the highest ratings, while traffic enforcement received the lowest ratings. FIGURE 39: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Police services 86% 86% 88% 87% 84% 84% 91% 87% 87% 90% 89% Fire services 93% 96% 92% 93% 95% 96% 98% 95% 94% 97% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 96% 93% 94% 91% 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% Crime prevention 75% 74% 81% 79% 73% 74% 83% 77% 86% 86% NA Fire prevention and education 82% 80% 76% 79% 80% 87% 86% 84% 82% 85% NA Traffic enforcement 64% 66% 61% 64% 61% 64% 72% 63% 63% 64% 64% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 77% 73% 64% 59% 62% 71% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 40: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Police services Above Fire services Above Ambulance or emergency medical services Above Crime prevention Above Fire prevention and education Similar Traffic enforcement Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 23 FIGURE 41: CONTACT WITH POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BY YEAR 33% 12% 31% 8% 33% 10% 0%25%50%75%100% Had contact with the police department Had contact with the fire department Percent "yes" 201320122011 FIGURE 42: RATINGS OF POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES BY YEAR 74% 75% 75% 95% 81% 92% 0%25%50%75%100% Ratings of contact with police department Ratings of contact with fire department Percent "excellent" or "good" 2013 2012 2011 FIGURE 43: CONTACT WITH POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department Less Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department Much above Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department Less Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 24 EENNVVII RROO NN MM EE NN TT AALL SSUUSSTT AA IINNAABBII LL IITT YY Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment. At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going “Green.” These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears. Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 83% of survey respondents. The cleanliness of Palo Alto received the highest rating, and it was much above the benchmark. FIGURE 44: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 84% 86% 88% 85% 85% 88% NA NA NA NA NA Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 83% 88% 84% 84% 84% 85% NA NA NA NA NA Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 79% 81% 76% 78% 82% 78% NA NA NA NA NA Air quality 81% 81% 77% 77% 73% 75% 79% 80% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 45: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto Much above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto Much above Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Much above Air quality Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Resident recycling was much greater than recycling reported in comparison communities. The frequency of resident recycling has remained stable since 2003. FIGURE 46: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 98%97%98%97%97%99%98%96%99%98%99% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 47: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Much more Of the four utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, three were higher than the benchmark comparison, one was similar and none were below the benchmark comparison. These service ratings trends were mostly stable when compared to past surveys. FIGURE 48: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sewer services 84% 82% 84% 82% 81% 81% 83% 83% 82% 80% 84% Drinking water 88% 83% 86% 84% 81% 87% 79% 80% 80% 74% 82% Storm drainage 69% 75% 74% 74% 73% 70% 59% 61% 60% 57% 65% Garbage collection 85% 89% 89% 88% 89% 92% 91% 92% 92% 91% 94% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 49: UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sewer services Much above Drinking water Much above Storm drainage Above Garbage collection Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 26 RREECC RREE AA TT IIOO NN AANNDD WWEE LL LL NNEE SS SS PPaarr kk ss aanndd RReeccrr ee aa ttii oonn Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its business, traffic and hard work. Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents, serving both to entertain and mobilize good health. The survey contained questions seeking residents’ perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community’s parks and recreation services. Recreation opportunities in the City of Palo Alto were rated positively as were services related to parks and recreation. City parks, recreation programs and recreation facilities were all rated higher than the benchmark. Parks and recreation ratings have stayed constant over time. Resident use of Palo Alto parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness and accessibility of those services. The percent of residents that used Palo Alto recreation centers was about the same as the percent of users in comparison jurisdictions. However, recreation program use in Palo Alto was higher than use in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 50: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 83%85%82%78%80%81%81%81% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 51: COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 27 FIGURE 52: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 58% 65% 60% 60% 63% 68% 67% 63% 62% 60% 53% Participated in a recreation program or activity 52% 50% 53% 50% 49% 56% 53% 54% 52% 50% 49% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 95% 91% 94% 94% 93% 92% 93% 93% 91% 92% Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 53: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers Similar Participated in a recreation program or activity More Visited a neighborhood park or City park Much more FIGURE 54: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 City parks 93% 91% 94% 90% 92% 89% 91% 87% 92% 91% 90% Recreation programs or classes 87% 87% 81% 82% 85% 87% 90% 85% 87% 85% 83% Recreation centers or facilities 80% 85% 75% 81% 80% 77% 82% 81% 78% 84% 77% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 55: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark City parks Much above Recreation programs or classes Much above Recreation centers or facilities Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 28 CC uullttuu rree ,, AA rrttss aa nndd EEdd uu cc aa ttii oonn A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like individuals who simply go to the office and return home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities. Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 69% of respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 87% of respondents. Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were much above the average of comparison jurisdictions, as were cultural activity opportunities. About 77% of Palo Alto residents used a City library at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey. This participation rate for library use was above comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 56: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 69% 77% 73% 74% 74% 79% 81% 85% 77% 83% NA Educational opportunities 87% 90% 90% 90% 91% 93% 94% 93% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 57: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities Much above Educational opportunities Much above FIGURE 58: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 77% 77% 74% 76% 82% 74% 79% 76% 79% 77% 80% Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 59: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services More Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 29 FIGURE 60: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public schools 94% 92% 92% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Public library services 85% 88% 83% 82% 78% 75% 81% 78% 80% 81% 81% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 61: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public schools Much above Public library services Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 30 HHeeaalltt hh aa nndd WW ee ll ll nn ee ssss Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster their well being. Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to rate the community’s health services as well as the availability of health care, high quality affordable food and preventive health care services. The availability of preventive health services were rated mostly positive for the City of Palo Alto, while the availability of affordable quality health care was rated less favorably by residents. Among Palo Alto residents, 62% rated affordable quality health care as “excellent” or “good.” Those ratings were above the ratings of comparison communities. FIGURE 62: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 68% 59% 62% 63% 57% 56% 57% NA NA NA Availability of affordable quality food 67% 68% 66% NA NA 64% NA NA NA NA NA Availability of preventive health services 73% 76% 72% 67% 67% 70% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 63: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care Above Availability of affordable quality food Above Availability of preventive health services Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 31 CC OOMM MM UU NN IITT YY IINNCC LL UU SS IIVVEENNEESSSS Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Palo Alto as a place to raise children or to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many. A high percentage of residents rated the City of Palo Alto as an “excellent” or “good” place to raise kids and a moderate percentage rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. A majority of residents felt that the local sense of community was “excellent” or “good.” Most survey respondents felt the City of Palo Alto was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. The availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents and was much lower than the benchmark. Ratings decreased for Palo Alto as a place to retire compared to the 2012 survey. FIGURE 64: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sense of community 67% 73% 75% 71% 71% 70% 70% 66% 68% 69% 70% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 76% 80% 78% 79% 78% 77% 79% 75% 72% 73% 73% Availability of affordable quality child care 31% 27% 35% 25% 32% 28% 26% 35% 26% 25% 25% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 94% 92% 92% 92% 93% 90% Palo Alto as a place to retire 56% 68% 68% 65% 64% 67% 61% 68% 60% 63% 62% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 65: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Much above Availability of affordable quality child care Much below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids Much above Palo Alto as a place to retire Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 45% to 75% with ratings of “excellent” or “good.” Services to seniors and youth were above the benchmark while services to low income people were the same. FIGURE 66: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services to seniors 74% 76% 80% 79% 82% 81% 79% 84% 78% 82% 77% Services to youth 75% 75% 78% 70% 75% 73% 73% 70% 68% 68% 66% Services to low- income people 45% 52% 51% 49% 59% 46% 46% 54% 45% 37% NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 67: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors Above Services to youth Much above Services to low income people Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 33 CC IIVVII CC EENNGGAAGGEEMM EE NN TT Community leaders cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Elected officials and staff require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents’ level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans. This survey information is essential for public communication and for helping local government staff to conceive strategies for reaching reluctant voters whose confidence in government may need boosting prior to important referenda. CC ii vv ii cc AAcctt ii vv ii tt yy Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the City of Palo Alto. Survey participants rated the volunteer opportunities in the City of Palo Alto favorably. Volunteer opportunities were rated much above the benchmark. FIGURE 68: RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to volunteer 82% 80% 80% 81% 83% 86% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 69: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to volunteer Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions. Attending a meeting of local elected officials, participating in a club and providing help to a neighbor all showed similar rates of involvement; while volunteering time to a group showed higher rates. Watching a meeting of local elected officials showed lower rates of community engagement. FIGURE 70: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR1 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 28% 25% 27% 27% 28% 26% 26% 27% 30% 28% 30% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 24% 21% 27% 28% 28% 26% 26% 31% 29% 27% 28% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 50% 54% 45% 51% 56% 51% 52% 53% 52% 52% 49% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 29% 38% 31% 31% 33% 34% NA NA NA NA NA Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92% 90% 90% 92% 93% 93% NA NA NA NA NA Percent participating at least once in the last 12 months FIGURE 71: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media Much less Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto More Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor Similar 1 Over the past few years, local governments have adopted communication strategies that embrace the Internet and new media. In 2010, the question, “Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television” was revised to include “the Internet or other media” to better reflect this trend. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 35 City of Palo Alto residents showed the largest amount of civic engagement in the area of electoral participation. Eighty-six percent reported they were registered to vote and 88% indicated they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self-reported voting was higher than comparison communities. FIGURE 72: REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR BY YEAR2 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Registered to vote 86% 88% 87% 90% 90% 89% 79% 77% 80% 83% 78% Voted in the last general election 88% 88% 87% 86% 87% 87% 76% 70% 79% 78% 72% Percent "yes" FIGURE 73: VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote Less Voted in last general election More 2 Note: In addition to the removal of “don’t know” responses, those who said “ineligible to vote” also have been omitted from this calculation. The full frequencies appear in Appendix A. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 36 IInn ff oorr mmaattiioo nn aa nndd AAww aa rreenn ee ssss Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of Palo Alto Web site in the previous 12 months, 81% reported they had done so at least once. Public information services were rated favorably compared to benchmark data. Reported visits to the City of Palo Alto Web site have increased over time. FIGURE 74: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 81% 79% 76% 79% 75% 78% 62% 54% 52% NA NA Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 75: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site Much more FIGURE 76: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public information services 73% 74% 67% 67% 68% 76% 73% 72% 74% 77% 72% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 77: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public information services Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 37 SS oocciiaall EEnnggaagg eemmeenn tt Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 74% of respondents, while a similar proportion rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities as “excellent” or “good.” When compared to the previous year’s survey, ratings for opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual activities decreased. FIGURE 78: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 74% 74% 76% 74% 80% 80% NA NA NA NA NA Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 75% 84% NA NA 91% 82% NA NA NA NA 64% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 79: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Much above Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities Similar Residents in Palo Alto reported a lower amount of neighborliness. Less than half indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors at least several times a week. This amount of contact with neighbors was much less than the amount of contact reported in other communities. FIGURE 80: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? 42% 50% 49% 42% 48% 40% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "at least several times per week" FIGURE 81: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week Much less Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 38 PPUUBBLLII CC TTRR UU SS TT When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents’ opinions about the overall direction the City of Palo Alto is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the City of Palo Alto could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of Palo Alto may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. A majority of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was “excellent” or “good.” When asked to rate the job the City of Palo Alto does at welcoming citizen involvement, 55% rated it as “excellent” or “good.” Of these four ratings, three were above the benchmark and one was below the benchmark. FIGURE 82: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto* 66% 67% 66% 62% 58% 64% 67% 74% 70% 74% 69% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking* 54% 59% 55% 57% 53% 63% 57% 62% 54% 63% 54% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement* 55% 58% 57% 57% 56% 57% 68% 73% 59% 70% 65% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 93% 91% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" * For jurisdictions that have conducted The NCS prior to 2008, this change in the wording of response options may cause a decline in the percent of residents who offer a positive perspective on public trust. It is well to factor in the possible change due to question wording this way: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a decrease, community sentiment is probably about stable. FIGURE 83: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto Above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking Below Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement Above Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 39 On average, residents of the City of Palo Alto gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to the State Government. The overall quality of services delivered by the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 84% of survey participants. The City of Palo Alto’s rating was above the benchmark when compared to other communities in the nation. Ratings of overall City services have remained stable over the last ten years. FIGURE 84: RATING OVERALL QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BY YEAR 87%90%88%87%86%85%80%80%83%88%84% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 85: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services provided by City of Palo Alto 84% 88% 83% 80% 80% 85% 86% 87% 88% 90% 87% Services provided by the Federal Government 37% 50% 41% 43% 41% 33% 33% 33% 32% 38% 32% Services provided by the State Government 33% 41% 26% 27% 23% 34% 44% 38% 32% 35% 31% Services provided by Santa Clara County Government 47% 60% 45% 48% 42% 54% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 86: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto Above Services provided by the Federal Government Similar Services provided by the State Government Below Services provided by Santa Clara County Government Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 40 CC ii ttyy ooff PPaalloo AA lltt oo EE mm pp ll oo yy ee eess The employees of the City of Palo Alto who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the City of Palo Alto. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the City of Palo Alto. As such, it is important to know about residents’ experience talking with that “face.” When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Palo Alto staff. Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in- person, over the phone or via email in the last 12 months; the 49% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is similar to the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. City employees were rated highly; 79% of respondents rated their overall impression as “excellent” or “good.” FIGURE 87: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 62%64% 56%54%57%54%58%56% 43%44%49% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent "yes" FIGURE 88: CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months Similar FIGURE 89: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BY YEAR 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Knowledge 84% 85% 80% 81% 84% 75% 85% 83% 84% 85% 85% Responsiveness 77% 76% 78% 75% 78% 73% 80% 78% 77% 83% 74% Courtesy 84% 89% 82% 82% 84% 78% 84% 83% 83% 84% 83% Overall impression 79% 81% 76% 77% 79% 73% 79% 79% 79% 84% 78% Percent "excellent" or "good" Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 41 FIGURE 90: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Knowledge Similar Responsiveness Similar Courteousness Above Overall impression Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 42 FF rr oo mm DD aa tt aa tt oo AA cc tt ii oo nn RREESS IIDDEE NNTT PPRR IIOO RR IITTII EE SS Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents’ opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services – those directed to save lives and improve safety. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis (KDA). The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self-report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading – just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in-flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services – like fire protection – invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important. But by using KDA, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents’ ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary – but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough. A KDA was conducted for the City of Palo Alto by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s overall services. Those Key Driver services that correlated most highly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Because a strong correlation is not the same as a cause, there is no guarantee that improving ratings on key drivers necessarily will improve ratings. What is certain from these analyses is that key drivers are good predictors of overall resident opinion and that the key drivers presented may be useful focus areas to consider for enhancement of overall service ratings. Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Palo Alto Key Driver Analysis were: Public information services Public schools Sidewalk maintenance Street lighting Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 43 CCII TTYY OO FF PP AALLOO AALLTT OO AACC TTII OONN CC HH AA RR TT ™™ The 2013 City of Palo Alto Action Chart™ on the following page combines three dimensions of performance: Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available, the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the national benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red). Identification of key services. A black key icon () next to a service box indicates it as a key driver for the City. Trendline icons (up and down arrows), indicating whether the current ratings are higher or lower than the previous survey. Nineteen services were included in the KDA for the City of Palo Alto. Of these, 12 were above the benchmark, one was below the benchmark and six were similar to the benchmark. Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider improvements to any key driver services that are trending down or that are not at least similar to the benchmark. In the case of Palo Alto, no key drivers were below the benchmark or trending lower in the current survey. Therefore, Palo Alto may wish to seek improvements to sidewalk maintenance as this key driver received ratings similar to other benchmark jurisdictions. More detail about interpreting results can be found in the next section. Services with a high percent of respondents answering “don’t know” were excluded from the analysis and were considered services that would be less influential. See Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies, Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses for the percent “don’t know” for each service. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 44 FIGURE 91: CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTION CHART™ Overall Quality of City of Palo Alto Services Legend Above Benchmark Similar to Benchmark Below Benchmark Rating decreaseRating increaseKey Driver Community Design Environmental Sustainability Preservation of natural areas Sewer services Drinking water Storm drainage Garbage collection Recreation and Wellness City parks Recreation facilitiesLibrary Public Safety Traffic enforcement Police services Street repair Economic development Planning and zoning Street cleaning Traffic signal timing Civic Engagement Public information Sidewalk maintenance Public schools Street lighting Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 45 UU ssii nngg YY oouurr AA cc tt ii oonn CChhaarr tt™™ The key drivers derived for the City of Palo Alto provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the City of Palo Alto, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC dataset. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys. Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. As staff review key drivers, not all drivers may resonate as likely links to residents’ perspectives about overall service quality. For example, in Palo Alto, planning and zoning and police services may be obvious links to overall service delivery (and each is a key driver from our national database), since it could be easy for staff to see how residents’ view of overall service delivery could be colored by how well they perceive police and land use planning to be delivered. But animal control could be a surprise. Before rejecting a key driver that does not pass the first test of conventional wisdom, consider whether residents’ opinions about overall service quality could reasonably be influenced by this unexpected driver. For example, in the case of animal control, was there a visible case of violation prior to the survey data collection? Do Palo Alto residents have different expectations for animal control than what current policy provides? Are the rare instances of violation serious enough to cause a word of mouth campaign about service delivery? If, after deeper review, the “suspect” driver still does not square with your understanding of the services that could influence residents’ perspectives about overall service quality (and if that driver is not a core service or a key driver from NRC’s national research), put action in that area on hold and wait to see if it appears as a key driver the next time the survey is conducted. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated (in bold typeface and with the symbol “•”), the City of Palo Alto key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys. In general, key drivers below the benchmark may be targeted for improvement. Additionally, we have indicated (with the symbol “°”) those services that neither are local nor national key drivers nor are they core services. It is these services that could be considered first for resource reductions. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 46 FIGURE 92: KEY DRIVERS COMPARED Service City of Palo Alto Key Drivers National Key Drivers Core Services Police services ° Traffic enforcement Street repair ° Street cleaning Street lighting Sidewalk maintenance ° Traffic signal timing Garbage collection Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services ° City parks ° Recreation centers or facilities Land use planning and zoning Economic development ° Public library • Public information services • Public schools ° Preservation of natural areas • Key driver overlaps with national and or core services ° Service may be targeted for reductions it is not a key driver or core service Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 47 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx AA :: CC oo mm ppll ee tt ee SS uu rr vv ee yy FF rr ee qq uu ee nn cc ii ee ss FFRREEQQUUEE NNCC IIEESS EEXXCCLLUUDDII NN GG ““DDOO NN ’’TT KKNNOOWW ”” RREESSPP OO NNSSEESS Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Palo Alto as a place to live 50% 42% 7% 1% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 49% 41% 8% 2% 100% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 52% 39% 8% 1% 100% Palo Alto as a place to work 51% 38% 10% 1% 100% Palo Alto as a place to retire 28% 28% 31% 13% 100% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 42% 49% 8% 1% 100% Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Sense of community 19% 48% 26% 8% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 29% 47% 18% 6% 100% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 36% 48% 14% 1% 100% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 37% 48% 14% 1% 100% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 12% 32% 37% 19% 100% Variety of housing options 6% 21% 42% 32% 100% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 20% 51% 25% 3% 100% Shopping opportunities 28% 45% 23% 4% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 30% 39% 27% 4% 100% Recreational opportunities 29% 51% 16% 3% 100% Employment opportunities 26% 41% 26% 7% 100% Educational opportunities 50% 38% 11% 1% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 27% 47% 23% 3% 100% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 28% 47% 22% 2% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 35% 47% 17% 1% 100% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 12% 44% 29% 16% 100% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 8% 28% 35% 28% 100% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 19% 45% 28% 7% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 29% 49% 18% 4% 100% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 38% 46% 12% 4% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 26% 45% 23% 6% 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 48 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 4% 30% 40% 26% 100% Amount of public parking 9% 31% 37% 24% 100% Availability of affordable quality housing 3% 10% 29% 57% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 10% 21% 38% 32% 100% Availability of affordable quality health care 22% 40% 25% 13% 100% Availability of affordable quality food 30% 37% 26% 7% 100% Availability of preventive health services 31% 42% 22% 5% 100% Air quality 28% 53% 18% 1% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 32% 52% 16% 1% 100% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 53% 38% 8% 2% 100% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook 23% 48% 21% 7% 100% Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Total Population growth 1% 1% 38% 37% 23% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 3% 13% 62% 16% 5% 100% Jobs growth 6% 24% 55% 11% 3% 100% Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Not a problem 33% Minor problem 44% Moderate problem 19% Major problem 4% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 49 Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 42% 38% 10% 10% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 17% 42% 17% 20% 4% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 49% 35% 12% 3% 1% 100% Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 71% 26% 2% 1% 0% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 30% 42% 12% 14% 2% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 66% 27% 5% 2% 0% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 27% 35% 15% 19% 4% 100% Question 7: Contact with Police Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? 67% 33% 100% Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? 51% 30% 14% 6% 100% Question 9: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents No 94% Yes 6% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 50 Question 10: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 14% Yes 86% Total 100% Question 11: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 23% 21% 22% 18% 16% 100% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 42% 22% 20% 7% 9% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 48% 24% 16% 5% 6% 100% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% 14% 33% 19% 27% 100% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 66% 15% 9% 3% 7% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 72% 21% 6% 1% 0% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 76% 17% 5% 1% 1% 100% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 19% 28% 34% 14% 5% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 2% 1% 6% 9% 82% 100% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 50% 17% 15% 7% 11% 100% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 71% 13% 7% 4% 5% 100% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 8% 24% 37% 14% 17% 100% Read Palo Alto Newspaper 9% 10% 22% 12% 46% 100% Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 54% 11% 21% 7% 6% 100% Question 12: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Just about everyday 19% Several times a week 23% Several times a month 30% Less than several times a month 28% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 51 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 38% 47% 12% 2% 100% Fire services 55% 38% 6% 1% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 56% 37% 7% 1% 100% Crime prevention 21% 54% 19% 6% 100% Fire prevention and education 29% 53% 13% 5% 100% Traffic enforcement 15% 49% 26% 10% 100% Street repair 11% 36% 36% 17% 100% Street cleaning 28% 47% 21% 3% 100% Street lighting 22% 44% 26% 8% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 15% 41% 25% 19% 100% Traffic signal timing 11% 42% 32% 15% 100% Bus or transit services 12% 38% 31% 19% 100% Garbage collection 41% 44% 13% 2% 100% Storm drainage 22% 47% 26% 5% 100% Drinking water 50% 37% 10% 2% 100% Sewer services 38% 46% 14% 1% 100% City parks 49% 44% 7% 0% 100% Recreation programs or classes 33% 54% 12% 1% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 29% 52% 18% 1% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 10% 26% 35% 29% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 14% 43% 33% 10% 100% Animal control 26% 51% 19% 5% 100% Economic development 22% 39% 31% 8% 100% Services to seniors 26% 47% 20% 7% 100% Services to youth 24% 51% 18% 6% 100% Services to low-income people 16% 28% 30% 26% 100% Public library services 38% 47% 12% 3% 100% Public information services 21% 52% 24% 3% 100% Public schools 59% 35% 5% 1% 100% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 22% 55% 20% 3% 100% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 26% 53% 17% 4% 100% Neighborhood branch libraries 34% 46% 16% 4% 100% Your neighborhood park 43% 44% 10% 2% 100% Variety of library materials 33% 48% 14% 5% 100% Street tree maintenance 22% 44% 24% 10% 100% Electric utility 30% 50% 16% 3% 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 52 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Gas utility 29% 52% 16% 3% 100% Recycling collection 46% 40% 11% 3% 100% City's Web site 19% 50% 26% 5% 100% Art programs and theatre 29% 53% 15% 3% 100% Question 14: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Palo Alto 25% 59% 14% 2% 100% The Federal Government 7% 30% 47% 16% 100% The State Government 5% 28% 47% 19% 100% Santa Clara County Government 11% 36% 45% 8% 100% Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 55% 34% 7% 5% 100% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 62% 25% 8% 5% 100% Question 16: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Very positive 6% Somewhat positive 26% Neutral 52% Somewhat negative 12% Very negative 4% Total 100% Question 17: Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? 90% 10% 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 53 Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? 69% 23% 6% 2% 100% Question 19: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents No 51% Yes 49% Total 100% Question 20: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 41% 43% 12% 3% 100% Responsiveness 43% 34% 15% 8% 100% Courtesy 48% 35% 13% 3% 100% Overall impression 46% 33% 15% 6% 100% Question 21: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 14% 53% 24% 9% 100% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 10% 44% 29% 17% 100% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 19% 36% 35% 11% 100% Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents No 35% Yes, full-time 56% Yes, part-time 9% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 54 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 55% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 11% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 7% Walk 6% Bicycle 11% Work at home 9% Other 2% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Less than 2 years 12% 2 to 5 years 19% 6 to 10 years 16% 11 to 20 years 16% More than 20 years 37% Total 100% Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses 56% House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 4% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 36% Mobile home 0% Other 3% Total 100% Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 43% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 57% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 55 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Less than $300 per month 4% $300 to $599 per month 8% $600 to $999 per month 7% $1,000 to $1,499 per month 8% $1,500 to $2,499 per month 24% $2,500 or more per month 49% Total 100% Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents No 66% Yes 34% Total 100% Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents No 68% Yes 32% Total 100% Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Less than $24,999 7% $25,000 to $49,999 9% $50,000 to $99,999 19% $100,000 to $149,999 20% $150,000 or more 46% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 56 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 97% Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 3% Total 100% Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% Black or African American 2% White 70% Other 3% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18 to 24 years 2% 25 to 34 years 17% 35 to 44 years 17% 45 to 54 years 23% 55 to 64 years 13% 65 to 74 years 11% 75 years or older 16% Total 100% Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Female 54% Male 46% Total 100% Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents No 14% Yes 80% Ineligible to vote 6% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 57 Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents No 11% Yes 81% Ineligible to vote 8% Total 100% Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents No 7% Yes 93% Total 100% Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents No 30% Yes 70% Total 100% Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Cell 32% Land line 45% Both 24% Total 100% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 58 FF RR EE QQ UU EE NN CCIIEE SS II NN CC LL UU DD IINNGG ““DD OONN’’TT KK NN OOWW ”” RR EE SS PPOONN SS EE SS These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the “n” or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage. Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Palo Alto as a place to live 50% 167 42% 142 7% 23 1% 2 0% 0 100% 334 Your neighborhood as a place to live 49% 164 41% 137 8% 25 2% 5 0% 0 100% 331 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 46% 152 35% 114 7% 25 1% 4 11% 36 100% 331 Palo Alto as a place to work 40% 131 30% 97 8% 26 1% 3 22% 73 100% 329 Palo Alto as a place to retire 23% 76 23% 76 25% 83 11% 35 18% 60 100% 331 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 42% 140 49% 162 8% 28 1% 2 0% 0 100% 332 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sense of community 18% 61 46% 152 25% 82 8% 25 3% 10 100% 330 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 27% 92 45% 151 17% 58 6% 20 4% 12 100% 334 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 36% 120 48% 159 14% 47 1% 4 0% 2 100% 332 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 36% 121 47% 158 14% 48 1% 4 0% 2 100% 333 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 10% 35 28% 93 33% 107 17% 56 11% 38 100% 329 Variety of housing options 5% 17 19% 64 39% 130 29% 98 7% 23 100% 331 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 20% 66 49% 164 25% 82 3% 11 3% 10 100% 333 Shopping opportunities 28% 93 45% 149 22% 75 4% 14 1% 2 100% 333 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 29% 96 37% 123 26% 86 4% 14 4% 15 100% 334 Recreational opportunities 28% 95 50% 166 16% 53 3% 10 3% 9 100% 333 Employment opportunities 21% 68 32% 106 20% 67 5% 17 21% 70 100% 328 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 59 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Educational opportunities 46% 154 35% 116 11% 35 1% 3 7% 23 100% 331 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 25% 82 44% 144 21% 70 3% 9 7% 24 100% 329 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 20% 64 33% 107 16% 51 2% 5 31% 100 100% 326 Opportunities to volunteer 28% 92 37% 121 14% 45 1% 3 20% 64 100% 324 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 11% 37 42% 142 28% 93 16% 52 3% 10 100% 334 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 6% 19 19% 62 23% 77 19% 62 33% 110 100% 329 Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 17% 56 40% 131 25% 82 6% 20 12% 39 100% 328 Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 26% 86 44% 145 16% 54 3% 11 10% 32 100% 329 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 38% 125 45% 150 12% 39 4% 13 1% 3 100% 331 Availability of paths and walking trails 24% 80 42% 141 22% 72 6% 19 6% 19 100% 331 Traffic flow on major streets 4% 14 29% 96 39% 129 26% 84 2% 7 100% 329 Amount of public parking 9% 28 29% 97 36% 117 23% 75 4% 12 100% 331 Availability of affordable quality housing 3% 10 8% 27 25% 82 49% 160 15% 50 100% 329 Availability of affordable quality child care 5% 16 11% 36 20% 65 17% 54 47% 155 100% 326 Availability of affordable quality health care 18% 61 33% 111 21% 70 11% 37 16% 52 100% 331 Availability of affordable quality food 29% 97 36% 120 25% 84 7% 24 2% 7 100% 331 Availability of preventive health services 24% 79 32% 106 17% 54 4% 14 23% 74 100% 326 Air quality 27% 88 52% 168 17% 56 1% 2 3% 8 100% 324 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 31% 104 51% 170 15% 51 1% 4 1% 3 100% 332 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 51% 165 37% 118 8% 25 2% 5 3% 8 100% 323 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook 12% 38 24% 78 11% 34 3% 11 50% 163 100% 324 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 60 Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Don't know Total Population growth 0% 2 1% 3 28% 94 28% 93 17% 57 25% 82 100% 331 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 2% 8 12% 38 55% 182 15% 48 5% 16 12% 39 100% 330 Jobs growth 3% 11 13% 42 29% 96 6% 19 2% 5 47% 156 100% 329 Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Not a problem 31% 99 Minor problem 41% 132 Moderate problem 18% 58 Major problem 3% 11 Don't know 7% 23 Total 100% 323 Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 41% 133 37% 121 10% 32 10% 32 1% 2 2% 5 100% 325 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 17% 54 41% 132 17% 55 20% 64 4% 12 2% 7 100% 324 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 46% 149 33% 106 12% 37 3% 11 1% 4 5% 17 100% 324 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 61 Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 70% 229 26% 85 2% 7 1% 3 0% 1 0% 1 100% 324 In your neighborhood after dark 30% 96 42% 135 12% 40 13% 44 2% 5 1% 4 100% 323 In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 64% 206 26% 84 5% 15 2% 7 0% 1 3% 9 100% 322 In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 25% 79 32% 105 14% 46 18% 57 4% 12 8% 25 100% 323 Question 7: Contact with Police Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Don't know Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? 66% 212 33% 105 1% 3 100% 321 Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? 50% 51 29% 30 13% 14 6% 6 2% 2 100% 104 Question 9: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents Count No 93% 301 Yes 6% 19 Don't know 2% 5 Total 100% 325 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 62 Question 10: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Count No 14% 3 Yes 86% 16 Don't know 0% 0 Total 100% 19 Question 11: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 23% 76 21% 67 22% 71 18% 60 16% 53 100% 328 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 42% 134 22% 71 20% 63 7% 23 9% 28 100% 320 Participated in a recreation program or activity 48% 154 24% 78 16% 53 5% 18 6% 21 100% 323 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% 19 14% 47 33% 108 19% 61 27% 89 100% 325 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 66% 214 15% 48 9% 29 3% 11 7% 23 100% 325 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 72% 234 21% 67 6% 20 1% 3 0% 1 100% 324 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City- sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 76% 250 17% 55 5% 17 1% 4 1% 2 100% 327 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 19% 62 28% 90 34% 110 14% 44 5% 18 100% 324 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 2% 8 1% 3 6% 20 9% 28 82% 266 100% 324 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 50% 162 17% 57 15% 49 7% 22 11% 34 100% 324 Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 71% 230 13% 42 7% 24 4% 12 5% 17 100% 324 Provided help to a friend or neighbor 8% 25 24% 76 37% 121 14% 47 17% 55 100% 323 Read Palo Alto Newspaper 9% 30 10% 32 22% 73 12% 40 46% 150 100% 325 Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 54% 177 11% 37 21% 70 7% 24 6% 19 100% 328 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 63 Question 12: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Count Just about everyday 19% 63 Several times a week 23% 73 Several times a month 30% 98 Less than several times a month 28% 91 Total 100% 325 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 31% 99 38% 123 10% 32 2% 6 20% 63 100% 322 Fire services 37% 119 25% 81 4% 12 1% 3 33% 108 100% 323 Ambulance or emergency medical services 33% 106 22% 71 4% 12 0% 2 41% 134 100% 324 Crime prevention 15% 49 39% 125 14% 45 4% 14 27% 87 100% 320 Fire prevention and education 16% 52 30% 95 7% 24 3% 8 44% 142 100% 320 Traffic enforcement 12% 40 40% 127 21% 67 8% 26 19% 60 100% 320 Street repair 11% 34 33% 108 34% 110 16% 51 6% 19 100% 321 Street cleaning 27% 88 46% 147 20% 66 3% 10 3% 11 100% 322 Street lighting 21% 68 43% 139 25% 80 8% 25 2% 8 100% 320 Sidewalk maintenance 15% 47 40% 129 24% 77 19% 60 2% 7 100% 320 Traffic signal timing 10% 32 39% 124 29% 93 14% 45 8% 25 100% 319 Bus or transit services 7% 23 23% 73 19% 61 12% 37 40% 127 100% 320 Garbage collection 40% 128 43% 139 13% 42 2% 5 3% 9 100% 323 Storm drainage 19% 60 40% 127 22% 71 4% 13 14% 45 100% 315 Drinking water 48% 156 36% 115 10% 31 2% 7 4% 13 100% 323 Sewer services 32% 104 40% 127 12% 39 1% 4 14% 46 100% 320 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 64 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total City parks 48% 153 43% 138 7% 22 0% 0 3% 9 100% 321 Recreation programs or classes 21% 67 35% 110 8% 25 1% 3 36% 113 100% 317 Recreation centers or facilities 20% 64 37% 116 13% 41 1% 2 29% 91 100% 315 Land use, planning and zoning 8% 24 19% 61 26% 82 22% 69 25% 79 100% 315 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 9% 29 28% 87 21% 66 7% 21 36% 112 100% 316 Animal control 17% 55 34% 110 13% 40 3% 11 32% 104 100% 320 Economic development 16% 49 28% 87 22% 69 6% 18 29% 91 100% 315 Services to seniors 14% 45 26% 82 11% 34 4% 12 45% 144 100% 317 Services to youth 13% 42 28% 90 10% 32 4% 11 45% 143 100% 319 Services to low-income people 7% 22 12% 38 13% 40 11% 34 58% 182 100% 316 Public library services 32% 101 40% 125 10% 33 3% 9 16% 49 100% 316 Public information services 16% 50 38% 121 18% 57 2% 6 26% 82 100% 317 Public schools 45% 143 27% 85 4% 13 1% 2 23% 73 100% 316 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 14% 43 34% 107 12% 38 2% 6 39% 124 100% 319 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 22% 69 46% 143 14% 45 4% 12 14% 43 100% 311 Neighborhood branch libraries 28% 88 37% 118 13% 40 3% 11 19% 60 100% 317 Your neighborhood park 42% 134 43% 136 10% 32 2% 5 4% 12 100% 319 Variety of library materials 25% 79 37% 115 11% 34 4% 11 23% 72 100% 312 Street tree maintenance 21% 67 42% 134 23% 74 9% 29 5% 15 100% 319 Electric utility 28% 89 47% 149 15% 48 3% 9 7% 24 100% 320 Gas utility 25% 80 45% 145 14% 44 3% 9 13% 43 100% 320 Recycling collection 45% 143 39% 124 10% 32 2% 8 4% 12 100% 319 City's Web site 14% 46 38% 120 20% 63 3% 11 25% 80 100% 320 Art programs and theatre 20% 64 38% 120 11% 33 2% 7 29% 92 100% 318 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 65 Question 14: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Palo Alto 24% 77 56% 180 13% 43 2% 7 5% 15 100% 321 The Federal Government 5% 17 24% 78 38% 122 13% 40 20% 63 100% 320 The State Government 4% 13 22% 72 38% 120 15% 49 20% 65 100% 320 Santa Clara County Government 7% 23 25% 79 30% 97 6% 18 32% 101 100% 318 Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 55% 181 34% 112 7% 22 5% 15 1% 2 100% 331 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 61% 198 25% 80 8% 26 5% 16 1% 5 100% 326 Question 16: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Count Very positive 6% 20 Somewhat positive 26% 84 Neutral 52% 171 Somewhat negative 12% 40 Very negative 4% 12 Total 100% 326 Question 17: Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Don't know Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? 89% 289 10% 34 1% 2 100% 325 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 66 Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? 69% 22 23% 7 6% 2 2% 1 0% 0 100% 32 Question 19: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents Count No 51% 165 Yes 49% 160 Total 100% 325 Question 20: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 40% 64 42% 67 12% 19 3% 5 2% 3 100% 159 Responsiveness 42% 67 33% 52 15% 23 8% 13 2% 4 100% 158 Courtesy 48% 77 35% 57 13% 21 3% 4 0% 0 100% 160 Overall impression 46% 74 33% 52 15% 23 6% 10 0% 0 100% 160 Question 21: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 12% 40 47% 153 21% 70 8% 28 12% 38 100% 329 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 9% 31 41% 132 27% 88 16% 52 7% 24 100% 326 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 13% 42 25% 81 24% 78 7% 24 31% 101 100% 326 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 67 Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents Count No 35% 114 Yes, full-time 56% 179 Yes, part-time 9% 29 Total 100% 321 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 55% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 11% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 7% Walk 6% Bicycle 11% Work at home 9% Other 2% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Less than 2 years 12% 39 2 to 5 years 19% 62 6 to 10 years 16% 51 11 to 20 years 16% 53 More than 20 years 37% 119 Total 100% 324 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 68 Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents Count One family house detached from any other houses 56% 182 House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 4% 14 Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 36% 117 Mobile home 0% 0 Other 3% 10 Total 100% 324 Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Count Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 43% 134 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 57% 174 Total 100% 308 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Count Less than $300 per month 4% 13 $300 to $599 per month 8% 24 $600 to $999 per month 7% 20 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 8% 25 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 24% 74 $2,500 or more per month 49% 153 Total 100% 309 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 69 Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents Count No 66% 214 Yes 34% 108 Total 100% 322 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count No 68% 223 Yes 32% 103 Total 100% 326 Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Count Less than $24,999 7% 21 $25,000 to $49,999 9% 26 $50,000 to $99,999 19% 57 $100,000 to $149,999 20% 60 $150,000 or more 46% 141 Total 100% 304 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents Count No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 97% 301 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 3% 11 Total 100% 311 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 70 Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents Count American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% 86 Black or African American 2% 7 White 70% 218 Other 3% 10 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents Count 18 to 24 years 2% 6 25 to 34 years 17% 54 35 to 44 years 17% 54 45 to 54 years 23% 73 55 to 64 years 13% 42 65 to 74 years 11% 36 75 years or older 16% 52 Total 100% 317 Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Count Female 54% 173 Male 46% 147 Total 100% 320 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 71 Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count No 13% 43 Yes 78% 254 Ineligible to vote 6% 20 Don't know 2% 7 Total 100% 324 Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents Count No 11% 37 Yes 80% 259 Ineligible to vote 8% 26 Don't know 1% 3 Total 100% 325 Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents Count No 7% 23 Yes 93% 299 Total 100% 321 Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents Count No 30% 96 Yes 70% 227 Total 100% 323 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 72 Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Count Cell 32% 65 Land line 45% 91 Both 24% 48 Total 100% 205 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 73 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx BB :: SS uu rr vv ee yy MM ee tt hh oo dd oo ll oo gg yy The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The NCS is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The NCS permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. SSUURRVVEEYY VV AA LL IIDDII TTYY The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population. A non-random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type. Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or staff member, thus appealing to the recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials. Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 74 service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents think about a community and what can be seen “objectively” in a community, NRC has argued that resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” SSUURRVVEEYY SSAAMMPP LL IINNGG “Sampling” refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey; 1,200 were selected to receive the survey. These 1,200 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing units within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the jurisdiction, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries, using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis), and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 75 To choose the 1,200 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households known to be within the City of Palo Alto. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected. Multi-family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. FIGURE 93: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 76 passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In response to the growing number of the cell-phone population (so-called “cord cutters”), which includes a large proportion of young adults, questions about cell phones and land lines are included on The NCS™ questionnaire. As of the middle of 2010 (the most recent estimates available as of the end of 2010), 26.6% of U.S. households had a cell phone but no landline.3 Among younger adults (age 18-34), 53.7% of households were “cell-only.” Based on survey results, Palo Alto has a “cord cutter” population similar to the nationwide 2010 estimates. FIGURE 94: PREVALENCE OF CELL-PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS IN PALO ALTO 80% 26% 29% 7% 0%25%50%75%100% 18-34 35-54 55+ Overall Percent of respondents reporting having a "cell phone" only SSUURRVVEEYY AA DD MM IINNII SS TT RR AA TTII OONN Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning August 5, 2013. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. SSUU RRVVEE YY RR EE SS PPOO NN SS EE RRAATT EE AANNDD CC OONNFFII DD EE NN CCEE IINNTT EE RRVV AA LL SS It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on to estimate all residents' opinions. The confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (337 completed surveys). A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that 3 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201012.pdf Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 77 the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction is between 71% and 79%. This source of error is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. SS UU RR VV EE YY PP RR OOCCEESSSSII NN GG ((DDAA TTAA EENNTT RRYY )) Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of “key and verify,” in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 78 SSUURRVVEEYY DDAATT AA WWEEII GGHHTT IINNGG The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census estimates and other population norms for adults in the City of Palo Alto. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type, race and ethnicity and sex and age. This decision was based on: The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables The saliency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups The importance to the community of correct ethnic representation The historical use of the variables and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. Data weighting can adjust up to five demographic variables. Several different weighting “schemes” may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 79 Palo Alto 2013 Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm1 Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 44% 37% 43% Own home 56% 63% 57% Detached unit 58% 52% 56% Attached unit 42% 48% 44% Race and Ethnicity White 68% 72% 67% Not white 32% 28% 33% Not Hispanic 94% 97% 97% Hispanic 6% 3% 3% White alone, not Hispanic 64% 70% 64% Hispanic and/or other race 36% 30% 36% Sex and Age Female 52% 56% 54% Male 48% 44% 46% 18-34 years of age 22% 12% 19% 35-54 years of age 40% 32% 40% 55+ years of age 38% 56% 41% Females 18-34 10% 6% 9% Females 35-54 21% 18% 21% Females 55+ 21% 32% 24% Males 18-34 11% 5% 10% Males 35-54 20% 15% 20% Males 55+ 17% 24% 16% 1 Source: 2010 Census/2005-2009 ACS Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 80 SSUURR VVEEYY DD AATT AA AANNAA LL YYSSII SS AA NNDD RR EEPPOO RR TTII NNGG The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report. UU ssee oo ff tt hhee ““EE xx cc ee ll ll ee nn tt,, GGoo oo dd,, FFaaiirr ,, PPoo oo rr”” RRee ss ppoo nn ssee SSccaallee The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor” (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The National Citizen Survey™ questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree- disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents’ perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). ““DD oo nn’’tt KK nn ooww ”” RR ee ssppoo nn sseess On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. BB eenn cc hhmm aa rrkk CCoomm pp aa rriissoo nn ss NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks was called “In Search of Standards.” “What has been missing from a local government’s analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems...” NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 81 also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC’s proprietary databases. NRC’s work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. TThhee RR oo ll ee ooff CCoomm pp aa rriissoo nn ss Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service – one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low – still has a problem to fix if the residents in the community it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents to their own objectively “worse” departments. The benchmark data can help that police department – or any department – to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given region or population category). Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 82 CC oo mmppaa rrii ssoonn ooff PPaalloo AA llttoo tt oo tt hh ee BBee nn cc hhmm aa rrkk DDaa ttaa bb aassee The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto Survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem). In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “above,” “below,” “more” or “less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and “much above,” “much below,” “much more” or “much less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 83 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx CC :: SS uu rr vv ee yy MM aa tt ee rr ii aa ll ss The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Palo Alto. Attachment A Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Attachment A Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Attachment A August 2013 Dear City of Palo Alto Resident: The City of Palo Alto wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Palo Alto’s 2013 Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Palo Alto residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call (650) 329-2667. Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Attachment A August 2013 Dear City of Palo Alto Resident: About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The City of Palo Alto wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Palo Alto’s Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Palo Alto residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call (650) 329-2667. Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Jim Pelletier City Auditor Attachment A The City of Palo Alto 2013 Citizen Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Palo Alto as a place to live ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to raise children ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to work ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to retire ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Palo Alto .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Palo Alto ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto.......... 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Educational opportunities ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Palo Alto ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major streets ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality child care .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.)............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attachment A Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 3 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 2 of 5 The National Citizen Survey™ 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Not a problem Minor problem Moderate problem Major problem Don’t know 5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day ................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? No Go to Question 9 Yes Go to Question 8 Don’t know Go to Question 9 8. What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know 9. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? No Go to Question 11 Yes Go to Question 10 Don’t know Go to Question 11 10. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? No Yes Don’t know 11. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Used Palo Alto recreation centers ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a recreation program or activity ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) ........... 1 2 3 4 5 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home.............................. 1 2 3 4 5 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Provided help to a friend or neighbor....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read a Palo Alto Newspaper .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Used the City’s Web site to conduct business or pay bills ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 12. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Just about every day Several times a week Several times a month Less than several times a month Attachment A The City of Palo Alto 2013 Citizen Survey Page 3 of 5 13. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to low-income people ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public schools .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborhood branch libraries ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood park .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of library materials ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street tree maintenance ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Electric utility ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Gas utility ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling collection ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 City’s Web site ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Art programs and theatre .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 14. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The City of Palo Alto ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The State Government ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Santa Clara County Government .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Attachment A Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 3 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 4 of 5 The National Citizen Survey™ 15. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 16. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative 17. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Go to Question 19 Yes Go to Question 18 Don’t know Go to Question 19 18. What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know 19. Have you had any in-person, phone or email contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? No Go to Question 21 Yes Go to Question 20 20. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 21. Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement .... 1 2 3 4 5 Attachment A The City of Palo Alto 2013 Citizen Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. Are you currently employed for pay? No Go to Question D3 Yes, full time Go to Question D2 Yes, part time Go to Question D2 D2. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself ............ ______ days Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults ........................... ______ days Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation ................................. ______ days Walk ................................................. ______ days Bicycle .............................................. ______ days Work at home ................................... ______ days Other ................................................ ______ days D3. How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D4. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) Building with two or more apartments or condominiums Mobile home Other D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D10 and D11: D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D12. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D13. What is your sex? Female Male D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? No Ineligible to vote Yes Don’t know D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? No Ineligible to vote Yes Don’t know D16. Do you have a cell phone? No Yes D17. Do you have a land line at home? No Yes D18. If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Attachment A Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 Attachment A Attachment A 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001133 BBeenncchhmmaarrkk RReeppoorrtt Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons ..................................................................... 1 Comparison Data ....................................................................................................................... 1 Putting Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale ............................................................................. 2 Interpreting the Results ............................................................................................................... 3 National Benchmark Comparisons .................................................................................... 4 Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons .................................................... 14 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nn dd ee rr ss tt aa nn dd ii nn gg tt hh ee BB ee nn cc hh mm aa rr kk CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss CCOO MM PP AARR IISSOO NN DD AATT AA NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region West Coast1 17% West2 20% North Central West3 11% North Central East4 13% South Central5 7% South6 26% Northeast West7 2% Northeast East8 4% Population Less than 40,000 46% 40,000 to 74,999 19% 75,000 to 149,000 17% 150,000 or more 18% 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii 2 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin 5 Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC 7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 8 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . PPUUTT TTII NN GG EE VV AALL UUAATT II OONNSS OONNTT OO TT HH EE 1100 00 --PP OOII NN TT SS CCAALLEE Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus three points based on all respondents. The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “excellent”=100, “good”=67, “fair”=33 and “poor”=0. If everyone reported “excellent,” then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “poor,” the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of “excellent” and half gave a score of “poor,” the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between “fair” and “good.” An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below. Example of Converting Responses to the 100-point Scale How do you rate the community as a place to live? Response option Total with “don’t know” Step1: Remove the percent of “don’t know” responses Total without “don’t know” Step 2: Assign scale values Step 3: Multiply the percent by the scale value Step 4: Sum to calculate the average rating Excellent 36% =36÷(100-5)= 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38 Good 42% =42÷(100-5)= 44% 67 =44% x 67 = 30 Fair 12% =12÷(100-5)= 13% 33 =13% x 33 = 4 Poor 5% =5÷(100-5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0 Don’t know 5% -- Total 100% 100% 72 How do you rate the community as a place to live? 5% 13% 44% 38% 0 Poor 67 Good 33 Fair 100 Excellent 72 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . IINNTT EE RRPP RR EE TTIINN GG TTHHEE RREE SS UULL TTSS Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC’s database, and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction’s rating on the 100- point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction’s rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. The fourth column shows Palo Alto’s percentile. The final column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction’s average rating to the benchmark. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto’s results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less.” (For example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “above,” “below,” “more” or “less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is greater than the margin of error; and “much above,” “much below,” “much more” or “much less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. This report contains benchmarks at the national level. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . NN aa tt ii oo nn aa ll BB ee nn cc hh mm aa rr kk CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 77 87 432 80% Much above Your neighborhood as place to live 80 42 271 85% Much above Palo Alto as a place to live 81 93 357 74% Much above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 89 109 232 53% Similar Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 87 84 231 64% Above Community Transportation Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 50 198 270 27% Below Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 39 142 197 28% Below Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto 59 21 54 62% Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 68 22 271 92% Much above Ease of walking in Palo Alto 73 30 265 89% Much above Availability of paths and walking trails 64 77 240 68% Much above Traffic flow on major streets 37 263 323 19% Much below Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 34 36 169 79% Much more Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Drive Alone Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone 55 204 215 5% Much less Transportation and Parking Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Street repair 47 229 415 45% Similar Street cleaning 67 36 259 86% Much above Street lighting 60 81 296 73% Above Sidewalk maintenance 51 153 273 44% Similar Traffic signal timing 50 106 229 54% Similar Bus or transit services 47 137 201 32% Below Amount of public parking 42 151 208 28% Below Housing Characteristics Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing 20 278 280 1% Much below Variety of housing options 33 225 229 2% Much below Housing Costs Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) 31 138 221 38% Less Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Built Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Palo Alto 45 215 254 15% Much below Overall appearance of Palo Alto 73 50 319 85% Much above Population Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast 60 20 222 91% Much more Nuisance Problems Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem 4 165 221 25% Much less Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning 39 214 264 19% Much below Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 54 104 337 69% Above Animal control 66 28 311 91% Much above Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities 62 4 280 99% Much above Shopping opportunities 66 48 262 82% Much above Palo Alto as a place to work 80 4 320 99% Much above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 63 66 228 71% Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Economic Development Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Economic development 58 40 261 85% Much above Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow 16 214 222 4% Much less Jobs growth seen as too slow 30 224 224 0% Much less Personal Economic Future Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income 32 10 219 96% Much above Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 92 112 318 65% Above In your neighborhood after dark 71 196 308 36% Similar In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 89 105 269 61% Above In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 65 146 273 47% Similar Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 78 118 259 55% Above Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 62 156 260 40% Similar Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 81 71 222 68% Above Crime Victimization and Reporting Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime 6 210 236 11% Less Reported crimes 86 82 231 65% More Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Public Safety Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Police services 74 94 407 77% Above Fire services 82 71 341 79% Above Ambulance or emergency medical services 82 50 323 85% Above Crime prevention 63 134 332 60% Above Fire prevention and education 69 107 262 59% Similar Traffic enforcement 57 211 358 41% Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 65 49 254 81% Much above Contact with Police and Fire Departments Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department 33 104 140 26% Less Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department 75 27 140 81% Much above Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department 10 87 104 17% Less Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department 86 41 104 61% Similar Community Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto 73 58 239 76% Much above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 71 54 238 78% Much above Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 67 32 237 87% Much above Air quality 70 52 221 77% Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 98 6 222 98% Much more Utility Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Sewer services 74 26 283 91% Much above Drinking water 79 8 304 98% Much above Storm drainage 62 88 343 75% Above Garbage collection 75 104 336 69% Similar Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities 69 52 273 81% Much above Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers 58 86 195 56% Similar Participated in a recreation program or activity 52 59 222 74% More Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94 18 229 93% Much more Parks and Recreation Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark City parks 81 31 296 90% Much above Recreation programs or classes 73 51 312 84% Much above Recreation centers or facilities 69 67 254 74% Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 65 43 280 85% Much above Educational opportunities 79 9 244 97% Much above Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 77 48 202 77% More Cultural and Educational Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Public schools 84 6 232 98% Much above Public library services 73 159 323 51% Similar Community Health and Wellness Access and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care 57 67 226 71% Above Availability of affordable quality food 63 49 181 73% Above Availability of preventive health services 66 17 177 91% Much above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 59 134 278 52% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 66 37 264 86% Much above Availability of affordable quality child care 36 196 226 13% Much below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids 80 76 351 79% Much above Palo Alto as a place to retire 57 203 330 39% Similar Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors 64 81 270 70% Above Services to youth 64 58 248 77% Much above Services to low income people 45 133 225 41% Similar Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to volunteer 72 37 229 84% Much above Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 28 66 229 71% Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 24 160 185 14% Much less Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 50 76 225 67% More Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 29 106 194 46% Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92 149 192 23% Similar Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Voter Behavior Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote 80 175 226 23% Less Voted in last general election 81 74 228 68% More Use of Information Sources Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site 81 10 224 96% Much more Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Public information services 64 85 248 66% Above Social Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 66 42 218 81% Much above Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 67 87 178 51% Similar Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week 42 184 212 13% Much less Public Trust Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 57 99 374 74% Above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 49 197 301 35% Below Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Public Trust Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 54 82 277 71% Above Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 80 18 323 95% Much above Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 69 101 407 75% Above Services provided by the Federal Government 43 93 228 59% Similar Services provided by the State Government 40 172 227 24% Below Services provided by Santa Clara County Government 50 105 191 45% Similar Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months 49 133 262 49% Similar Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of jurisdictions for comparison City of Palo Alto percentile Comparison to benchmark Knowledge 74 113 285 61% Similar Responsiveness 71 130 286 55% Similar Courteousness 76 87 244 65% Above Overall impression 73 95 330 71% Above Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . JJUURR IISSDDII CCTTII OONNSS IINNCC LL UUDDEEDD IINN NNAA TTII OONN AALL BB EE NN CC HH MMAA RR KK CC OOMMPP AA RR IISSOONNSS Valdez, AK .................................... 3,976 Auburn, AL .................................. 53,380 Dothan, AL .................................. 65,496 Gulf Shores, AL ............................. 9,741 Tuskegee, AL ................................. 9,865 Vestavia Hills, AL ........................ 34,033 Fayetteville, AR ........................... 73,580 Fort Smith, AR ............................. 86,209 Little Rock, AR .......................... 193,524 Casa Grande, AZ ......................... 48,571 Chandler, AZ ............................. 236,123 Cococino County, AZ ................ 134,421 Dewey-Humboldt, AZ ................... 3,894 Flagstaff, AZ ................................ 65,870 Florence, AZ ............................... 25,536 Fountain Hills, AZ ....................... 22,489 Gilbert, AZ ................................ 208,453 Goodyear, AZ ............................. 65,275 Green Valley, AZ ........................ 21,391 Kingman, AZ ............................... 28,068 Marana, AZ ................................. 34,961 Maricopa, AZ .............................. 43,482 Maricopa County, AZ ............. 3,817,117 Mesa, AZ ................................... 439,041 Nogales, AZ ................................ 20,837 Peoria, AZ ................................. 154,065 Phoenix, AZ ........................... 1,445,632 Pinal County, AZ ....................... 375,770 Prescott Valley, AZ ...................... 38,822 Queen Creek, AZ ........................ 26,361 Sahuarita, AZ ............................... 25,259 Scottsdale, AZ ........................... 217,385 Sedona, AZ ................................. 10,031 Surprise, AZ .............................. 117,517 Tempe, AZ ................................ 161,719 Yuma, AZ .................................... 93,064 Yuma County, AZ ...................... 195,751 Apple Valley, CA ......................... 69,135 Benicia, CA ................................. 26,997 Brea, CA ...................................... 39,282 Brisbane, CA ................................. 4,282 Burlingame, CA ........................... 28,806 Citrus Heights, CA ....................... 83,301 Clovis, CA ................................... 95,631 Concord, CA ............................. 122,067 Coronado, CA ............................. 18,912 Cupertino, CA ............................. 58,302 Davis, CA .................................... 65,622 Dublin, CA .................................. 46,036 El Cerrito, CA .............................. 23,549 Elk Grove, CA ........................... 153,015 Encinitas, CA ............................... 59,518 Fremont, CA ............................. 214,089 Galt, CA ...................................... 23,647 Laguna Beach, CA ....................... 22,723 Laguna Hills, CA ......................... 30,344 Livermore, CA ............................. 80,968 Lodi, CA ..................................... 62,134 Long Beach, CA ........................ 462,257 Marin County, CA ..................... 252,409 Menlo Park, CA........................... 32,026 Mission Viejo, CA ....................... 93,305 Monterey, CA ............................. 27,810 Newport Beach, CA .................... 85,186 Novato, CA ................................. 51,904 Palm Springs, CA ........................ 44,552 Pasadena, CA ............................ 137,122 Richmond, CA .......................... 103,701 San Carlos, CA ............................ 28,406 San Diego, CA ....................... 1,307,402 San Francisco, CA ..................... 805,235 San Jose, CA .............................. 945,942 San Luis Obispo County, CA ..... 269,637 San Mateo, CA ............................ 97,207 San Rafael, CA ............................ 57,713 Santa Clarita, CA ....................... 176,320 Santa Monica, CA ....................... 89,736 Seaside, CA ................................. 33,025 South Lake Tahoe, CA ................. 21,403 Stockton, CA ............................. 291,707 Sunnyvale, CA .......................... 140,081 Temecula, CA ........................... 100,097 Thousand Oaks, CA .................. 126,683 Visalia, CA ................................ 124,442 Walnut Creek, CA ....................... 64,173 Adams County, CO ................... 441,603 Arapahoe County, CO ............... 572,003 Archuleta County, CO ................. 12,084 Arvada, CO ............................... 106,433 Aspen, CO .....................................6,658 Aurora, CO ............................... 325,078 Boulder, CO ............................... 97,385 Boulder County, CO ................. 294,567 Broomfield, CO .......................... 55,889 Castle Pines, CO ......................... 10,360 Castle Rock, CO .......................... 48,231 Centennial, CO ......................... 100,377 Clear Creek County, CO ................9,088 Colorado Springs, CO ............... 416,427 Commerce City, CO.................... 45,913 Craig, CO .......................................9,464 Crested Butte, CO ..........................1,487 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Denver, CO ............................... 600,158 Douglas County, CO ................. 285,465 Eagle County, CO ........................ 52,197 Edgewater, CO .............................. 5,170 El Paso County, CO ................... 622,263 Englewood, CO ........................... 30,255 Erie, CO ...................................... 18,135 Estes Park, CO ............................... 5,858 Fort Collins, CO ........................ 143,986 Frisco, CO ..................................... 2,683 Fruita, CO ................................... 12,646 Georgetown, CO ........................... 1,034 Gilpin County, CO ........................ 5,441 Golden, CO ................................ 18,867 Grand County, CO ...................... 14,843 Greeley, CO ................................ 92,889 Gunnison County, CO ................. 15,324 Highlands Ranch, CO .................. 96,713 Hudson, CO .................................. 2,356 Jackson County, CO ...................... 1,394 Jefferson County, CO ................. 534,543 Lafayette, CO .............................. 24,453 Lakewood, CO .......................... 142,980 Larimer County, CO .................. 299,630 Littleton, CO ............................... 41,737 Lone Tree, CO ............................. 10,218 Longmont, CO ............................ 86,270 Louisville, CO ............................. 18,376 Loveland, CO .............................. 66,859 Mesa County, CO ...................... 146,723 Montrose, CO ............................. 19,132 Northglenn, CO .......................... 35,789 Park County, CO ......................... 16,206 Parker, CO .................................. 45,297 Pitkin County, CO ....................... 17,148 Pueblo, CO ............................... 106,595 Rifle, CO ....................................... 9,172 Salida, CO ..................................... 5,236 Summit County, CO .................... 27,994 Teller County, CO ....................... 23,350 Thornton, CO ............................ 118,772 Vail, CO ........................................ 5,305 Westminster, CO ....................... 106,114 Wheat Ridge, CO ........................ 30,166 Windsor, CO ............................... 18,644 Coventry, CT ................................. 2,990 Hartford, CT .............................. 124,775 Windsor, CT ................................ 29,044 Dover, DE ................................... 36,047 Milford, DE ................................... 9,559 Rehoboth Beach, DE ..................... 1,327 Brevard County, FL .................... 543,376 Cape Coral, FL........................... 154,305 Charlotte County, FL ................. 159,978 Clearwater, FL ........................... 107,685 Collier County, FL ..................... 321,520 Cooper City, FL ........................... 28,547 Dade City, FL .................................6,437 Dania Beach, FL .......................... 29,639 Daytona Beach, FL ...................... 61,005 Delray Beach, FL ......................... 60,522 Destin, FL ................................... 12,305 Escambia County, FL ................. 297,619 Gainesville, FL .......................... 124,354 Hillsborough County, FL ........ 1,229,226 Jupiter, FL ................................... 55,156 Lee County, FL .......................... 618,754 Martin County, FL ..................... 146,318 Miami Beach, FL ......................... 87,779 North Palm Beach, FL ................. 12,015 Oakland Park, FL ........................ 41,363 Ocala, FL .................................... 56,315 Oviedo, FL .................................. 33,342 Palm Bay, FL ............................. 103,190 Palm Beach County, FL .......... 1,320,134 Palm Coast, FL ............................ 75,180 Panama City, FL .......................... 36,484 Pasco County, FL ...................... 464,697 Pinellas County, FL ................... 916,542 Port Orange, FL ........................... 56,048 Port St. Lucie, FL ....................... 164,603 Sanford, FL .................................. 53,570 Sarasota, FL ................................. 51,917 Sarasota County, FL ................... 379,448 St. Cloud, FL ............................... 35,183 Titusville, FL ............................... 43,761 Winter Garden, FL ...................... 34,568 Albany, GA ................................. 77,434 Alpharetta, GA ............................ 57,551 Cartersville, GA........................... 19,731 Conyers, GA ............................... 15,195 Decatur, GA ................................ 19,335 McDonough, GA ........................ 22,084 Peachtree City, GA ...................... 34,364 Roswell, GA ................................ 88,346 Sandy Springs, GA ...................... 93,853 Savannah, GA ........................... 136,286 Smyrna, GA ................................ 51,271 Snellville, GA .............................. 18,242 Suwanee, GA .............................. 15,355 Valdosta, GA ............................... 54,518 Honolulu, HI ............................ 953,207 Altoona, IA .................................. 14,541 Ames, IA ..................................... 58,965 Ankeny, IA .................................. 45,582 Bettendorf, IA .............................. 33,217 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Cedar Falls, IA ............................. 39,260 Cedar Rapids, IA........................ 126,326 Clive, IA ...................................... 15,447 Davenport, IA .............................. 99,685 Des Moines, IA .......................... 203,433 Dubuque, IA ............................... 57,637 Indianola, IA................................ 14,782 Muscatine, IA .............................. 22,886 Urbandale, IA .............................. 39,463 West Des Moines, IA ................... 56,609 Boise, ID ................................... 205,671 Hailey, ID ..................................... 7,960 Jerome, ID ................................... 10,890 Meridian, ID ................................ 75,092 Moscow, ID ................................ 23,800 Pocatello, ID ............................... 54,255 Post Falls, ID ............................... 27,574 Twin Falls, ID .............................. 44,125 Batavia, IL ................................... 26,045 Bloomington, IL ........................... 76,610 Centralia, IL ................................. 13,032 Collinsville, IL ............................. 25,579 Crystal Lake, IL ............................ 40,743 DeKalb, IL ................................... 43,862 Elmhurst, IL ................................. 44,121 Evanston, IL ................................. 74,486 Freeport, IL .................................. 25,638 Highland Park, IL......................... 29,763 Lincolnwood, IL .......................... 12,590 Lyons, IL ...................................... 10,729 Naperville, IL ............................ 141,853 Normal, IL ................................... 52,497 Oak Park, IL ................................ 51,878 O'Fallon, IL ................................. 28,281 Orland Park, IL ............................ 56,767 Palatine, IL .................................. 68,557 Park Ridge, IL .............................. 37,480 Peoria County, IL ....................... 186,494 Riverside, IL .................................. 8,875 Rockford Park District, IL ........... 152,871 Sherman, IL ................................... 4,148 Shorewood, IL ............................. 15,615 Skokie, IL .................................... 64,784 Sugar Grove, IL ............................. 8,997 Wilmington, IL .............................. 5,724 Brownsburg, IN ........................... 21,285 Fishers, IN ................................... 76,794 Munster, IN ................................. 23,603 Noblesville, IN ............................ 51,969 Arkansas City, KS......................... 12,415 Auburn, KS .................................... 6,844 Fairway, KS ................................... 3,882 Garden City, KS ........................... 26,658 Gardner, KS ................................ 19,123 Johnson County, KS .................. 544,179 Lawrence, KS .............................. 87,643 Merriam, KS ................................ 11,003 Mission, KS ....................................9,323 Olathe, KS ................................. 125,872 Roeland Park, KS ............................6,731 Shawnee, KS ............................... 62,209 Wichita, KS ............................... 382,368 Bowling Green, KY ..................... 58,067 Paducah, KY ............................... 25,024 New Orleans, LA ...................... 343,829 Andover, MA .................................8,762 Barnstable, MA ........................... 45,193 Bedford, MA ............................... 13,320 Burlington, MA ........................... 24,498 Cambridge, MA......................... 105,162 Concord, MA .............................. 17,668 Holden, MA ................................ 17,346 Hopkinton, MA ........................... 14,925 Needham, MA ............................ 28,886 Shrewsbury, MA ......................... 35,608 Southborough, MA .........................9,767 Wrentham, MA ........................... 10,955 Annapolis, MD ............................ 38,394 Baltimore, MD .......................... 620,961 Baltimore County, MD .............. 805,029 Dorchester County, MD .............. 32,618 Gaithersburg, MD ....................... 59,933 La Plata, MD ..................................8,753 Montgomery County, MD ......... 971,777 Prince George's County, MD .... 863,420 Rockville, MD ............................. 61,209 Takoma Park, MD ....................... 16,715 Freeport, ME ..................................1,485 Lewiston, ME .............................. 36,592 Saco, ME ..................................... 18,482 Scarborough, ME ............................4,403 South Portland, ME ..................... 25,002 Ann Arbor, MI ........................... 113,934 Battle Creek, MI .......................... 52,347 Bloomfield Hills, MI .......................3,869 Delhi Township, MI .................... 25,877 East Lansing, MI .......................... 48,579 Escanaba, MI ............................... 12,616 Farmington Hills, MI ................... 79,740 Flushing, MI ...................................8,389 Gladstone, MI ................................4,973 Holland, MI ................................ 33,051 Howell, MI ....................................9,489 Hudsonville, MI .............................7,116 Jackson County, MI ................... 160,248 Kalamazoo, MI ............................ 74,262 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Kalamazoo County, MI .............. 250,331 Meridian Charter Township, MI ... 39,688 Midland, MI ................................ 41,863 Novi, MI ...................................... 55,224 Oakland Township, MI ................ 16,779 Otsego County, MI ...................... 24,164 Petoskey, MI .................................. 5,670 Port Huron, MI ............................ 30,184 Rochester, MI .............................. 12,711 Royal Oak, MI ............................. 57,236 South Haven, MI ........................... 4,403 Sterling Heights, MI ................... 129,699 Whitewater Township, MI ............. 2,597 Albert Lea, MN ............................ 18,016 Beltrami County, MN .................. 44,442 Blaine, MN .................................. 57,186 Bloomington, MN ....................... 82,893 Carver County, MN ..................... 91,042 Chanhassen, MN ......................... 22,952 Coon Rapids, MN ........................ 61,476 Dakota County, MN .................. 398,552 Duluth, MN ................................. 86,265 East Grand Forks, MN ................... 8,601 Eden Prairie, MN ......................... 60,797 Edina, MN ................................... 47,941 Elk River, MN .............................. 22,974 Fridley, MN ................................. 27,208 Hutchinson, MN ......................... 14,178 Inver Grove Heights, MN ............ 33,880 Lakeville, MN .............................. 55,954 Mankato, MN .............................. 39,309 Maple Grove, MN ....................... 61,567 Mayer, MN .................................... 1,749 Minneapolis, MN ...................... 382,578 New Brighton, MN ...................... 21,456 Olmsted County, MN ................ 144,248 Plymouth, MN ............................. 70,576 Savage, MN ................................. 26,911 Scott County, MN ...................... 129,928 Shorewood, MN ............................ 7,307 St. Cloud, MN ............................. 65,842 St. Louis County, MN ................ 200,226 St. Louis Park, MN ....................... 45,250 Washington County, MN ........... 238,136 Woodbury, MN ........................... 61,961 Blue Springs, MO ........................ 52,575 Branson, MO ............................... 10,520 Cape Girardeau, MO ................... 37,941 Clay County, MO ...................... 221,939 Clayton, MO ............................... 15,939 Columbia, MO .......................... 108,500 Ellisville, MO ................................ 9,133 Harrisonville, MO ....................... 10,019 Jefferson City, MO ...................... 43,079 Lee's Summit, MO ...................... 91,364 Maryland Heights, MO ............... 27,472 Platte City, MO ..............................4,691 Raymore, MO ............................. 19,206 Richmond Heights, MO .................8,603 Riverside, MO ................................2,937 Rolla, MO ................................... 19,559 Wentzville, MO .......................... 29,070 Billings, MT .............................. 104,170 Bozeman, MT ............................. 37,280 Missoula, MT .............................. 66,788 Asheville, NC .............................. 83,393 Cabarrus County, NC ................ 178,011 Cary, NC ................................... 135,234 Chapel Hill, NC .......................... 57,233 Charlotte, NC ............................ 731,424 Davidson, NC ............................. 10,944 Durham, NC ............................. 228,330 High Point, NC ......................... 104,371 Hillsborough, NC ...........................6,087 Huntersville, NC ......................... 46,773 Indian Trail, NC .......................... 33,518 Mecklenburg County, NC ......... 919,628 Mooresville, NC .......................... 32,711 Pinehurst, NC ............................. 13,124 Stallings, NC ............................... 13,831 Wake Forest, NC ......................... 30,117 Weddington, NC ............................9,459 Wilmington, NC ....................... 106,476 Winston-Salem, NC................... 229,617 Wahpeton, ND ..............................7,766 Grand Island, NE ......................... 48,520 La Vista, NE ................................ 15,758 Lincoln, NE ............................... 258,379 Papillion, NE ............................... 18,894 Brookline, NH ...............................4,991 Dover, NH .................................. 29,987 Lebanon, NH .............................. 13,151 Lyme, NH ......................................1,716 Summit, NJ ................................. 21,457 Albuquerque, NM ..................... 545,852 Farmington, NM.......................... 45,877 Las Cruces, NM ........................... 97,618 Los Alamos County, NM ............. 17,950 Rio Rancho, NM ......................... 87,521 San Juan County, NM ................ 130,044 Carson City, NV .......................... 55,274 Henderson, NV ......................... 257,729 North Las Vegas, NV ................. 216,961 Reno, NV .................................. 225,221 Sparks, NV .................................. 90,264 Washoe County, NV ................. 421,407 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Geneva, NY ................................ 13,261 New York City, NY ................. 8,175,133 Ogdensburg, NY ......................... 11,128 Blue Ash, OH .............................. 12,114 Delaware, OH ............................. 34,753 Dublin, OH ................................. 41,751 Hamilton, OH ............................. 62,477 Hudson, OH ............................... 22,262 Kettering, OH .............................. 56,163 Orange Village, OH ...................... 3,323 Piqua, OH ................................... 20,522 Springboro, OH ........................... 17,409 Sylvania Township, OH .............. 18,965 Upper Arlington, OH .................. 33,771 West Carrollton, OH ................... 13,143 Westerville, OH .......................... 36,120 Broken Arrow, OK ....................... 98,850 Edmond, OK ............................... 81,405 Norman, OK ............................. 110,925 Oklahoma City, OK ................... 579,999 Stillwater, OK .............................. 45,688 Tulsa, OK .................................. 391,906 Albany, OR ................................. 50,158 Ashland, OR ................................ 20,078 Bend, OR .................................... 76,639 Corvallis, OR ............................... 54,462 Forest Grove, OR ........................ 21,083 Hermiston, OR ............................ 16,745 Jackson County, OR .................. 203,206 Keizer, OR .................................. 36,478 Lake Oswego, OR ....................... 36,619 Lane County, OR ....................... 351,715 McMinnville, OR ........................ 32,187 Medford, OR ............................... 74,907 Portland, OR ............................. 583,776 Springfield, OR ............................ 59,403 Tualatin, OR ................................ 26,054 Umatilla, OR ................................. 6,906 Wilsonville, OR ........................... 19,509 Chambersburg, PA ...................... 20,268 Cranberry Township, PA ............. 28,098 Cumberland County, PA ............ 235,406 Kennett Square, PA ........................ 6,072 Kutztown Borough, PA .................. 5,012 Lower Providence Township, PA . 25,436 Peters Township, PA .................... 21,213 Radnor Township, PA .................. 31,531 State College, PA ......................... 42,034 Upper Merion Township, PA ....... 28,395 West Chester, PA ......................... 18,461 East Providence, RI ...................... 47,037 Newport, RI ................................. 24,672 Greer, SC .................................... 25,515 Rock Hill, SC .............................. 66,154 Rapid City, SD ............................ 67,956 Sioux Falls, SD .......................... 153,888 Bristol, TN .................................. 26,702 Cookeville, TN ............................ 30,435 Germantown, TN ........................ 38,844 Johnson City, TN ......................... 63,152 Morristown, TN .......................... 29,137 Nashville, TN ............................ 601,222 Sevierville, TN ............................ 14,807 White House, TN ........................ 10,255 Arlington, TX ............................ 365,438 Austin, TX ................................. 790,390 Baytown, TX ............................... 71,802 Benbrook, TX .............................. 21,234 Bryan, TX .................................... 76,201 Burleson, TX ............................... 36,690 College Station, TX...................... 93,857 Colleyville, TX ............................ 22,807 Corpus Christi, TX ..................... 305,215 Cross Roads, TX .............................1,563 Dallas, TX .............................. 1,197,816 Denton, TX ............................... 113,383 Duncanville, TX .......................... 38,524 El Paso, TX ................................ 649,121 Flower Mound, TX ...................... 64,669 Fort Worth, TX .......................... 741,206 Galveston, TX ............................. 47,743 Georgetown, TX .......................... 47,400 Houston, TX ........................... 2,099,451 Hurst, TX..................................... 37,337 Hutto, TX .................................... 14,698 La Porte, TX ................................ 33,800 League City, TX ........................... 83,560 McAllen, TX .............................. 129,877 McKinney, TX ........................... 131,117 New Braunfels, TX ...................... 57,740 Plano, TX .................................. 259,841 Round Rock, TX .......................... 99,887 Rowlett, TX ................................. 56,199 San Antonio, TX ..................... 1,327,407 San Marcos, TX ........................... 44,894 Southlake, TX .............................. 26,575 Sugar Land, TX ............................ 78,817 Temple, TX ................................. 66,102 The Woodlands, TX .................... 93,847 Tomball, TX ................................ 10,753 Tyler, TX ..................................... 96,900 Watauga, TX ............................... 23,497 Westlake, TX .....................................992 Park City, UT .................................7,558 Provo, UT ................................. 112,488 Riverdale, UT .................................8,426 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Salt Lake City, UT ...................... 186,440 Sandy, UT ................................... 87,461 Saratoga Springs, UT ................... 17,781 Springville, UT ............................ 29,466 Washington City, UT ................... 18,761 Albemarle County, VA ................ 98,970 Arlington County, VA ................ 207,627 Ashland, VA .................................. 7,225 Botetourt County, VA .................. 33,148 Charlottesville, VA ...................... 43,475 Chesapeake, VA ........................ 222,209 Chesterfield County, VA ............ 316,236 Fredericksburg, VA ...................... 24,286 Hampton, VA ............................ 137,436 Hanover County, VA ................... 99,863 Herndon, VA ............................... 23,292 James City County, VA ................ 67,009 Lexington, VA ............................... 7,042 Lynchburg, VA ............................ 75,568 Montgomery County, VA ............. 94,392 Newport News, VA ................... 180,719 Norfolk, VA ............................... 242,803 Prince William County, VA ....... 402,002 Purcellville, VA ............................. 7,727 Radford, VA ................................ 16,408 Reston, VA .................................. 58,404 Roanoke, VA ............................... 97,032 Spotsylvania County, VA ........... 122,397 Virginia Beach, VA .................... 437,994 Williamsburg, VA ........................ 14,068 York County, VA ......................... 65,464 Montpelier, VT .............................. 7,855 Airway Heights, WA ...................... 6,114 Auburn, WA ................................ 70,180 Bellevue, WA ............................ 122,363 Clark County, WA ..................... 425,363 Edmonds, WA ............................. 39,709 Federal Way, WA ........................ 89,306 Gig Harbor, WA.............................7,126 Hoquiam, WA ................................8,726 Kenmore, WA ............................. 20,460 Kirkland, WA .............................. 48,787 Lynnwood, WA ........................... 35,836 Maple Valley, WA ....................... 22,684 Mountlake Terrace, WA .............. 19,909 Pasco, WA .................................. 59,781 Redmond, WA ............................ 54,144 Renton, WA ................................ 90,927 Sammamish, WA ........................ 45,780 SeaTac, WA ................................ 26,909 Shoreline, WA ............................ 53,007 Snoqualmie, WA ......................... 10,670 Spokane Valley, WA ................... 89,755 Tacoma, WA ............................. 198,397 Tacoma Public Works, WA ....... 198,397 Vancouver, WA ........................ 161,791 West Richland, WA ..................... 11,811 Woodland, WA ..............................5,509 Yakima, WA ................................ 91,067 Chippewa Falls, WI ..................... 13,661 Columbus, WI ................................4,991 De Pere, WI ................................ 23,800 Eau Claire, WI ............................. 65,883 Grafton, WI ................................. 11,459 Madison, WI ............................. 233,209 Merrill, WI .....................................9,661 Oshkosh, WI ............................... 66,083 Racine, WI .................................. 78,860 River Falls, WI ............................. 15,000 Wauwatosa, WI .......................... 46,396 Wind Point, WI ..............................1,723 Casper, WY ................................. 55,316 Cheyenne, WY ............................ 59,466 Gillette, WY ................................ 29,087 Attachment A Attachment A 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001133 RReeppoorrtt ooff GGeeooggrraapphhiicc SSuubbggrroouupp CCoommppaarriissoonnss Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Survey Background ........................................................................................................... 1 About The National Citizen Survey™ .......................................................................................... 1 Understanding the Results ................................................................................................ 2 “Don’t Know” Responses ........................................................................................................... 2 Understanding the Tables .......................................................................................................... 2 Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 4 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . SS uu rr vv ee yy BB aa cc kkgg rr oo uu nn dd AABB OOUUTT TT HH EE NN AATT IIOONNAA LL CCII TTII ZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen Survey™ Basic Service. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nn dd ee rr ss tt aa nn dd ii nn gg tt hh ee RR ee ss uu ll tt ss ““DD OONN ’’TT KK NN OOWW ”” RREE SS PP OONNSSEESS On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. UUNNDDEERRSSTT AA NN DD IINNGG TT HH EE TTAABBLLEESS In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was “about right.” ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey. The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (337 completed surveys). For each area (North Palo Alto or South Palo Alto), the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 8% since sample sizes were approximately 160 for North Palo Alto and 177 for South Palo Alto. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups. Question 1: Quality of Life (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Area North South Overall Palo Alto as a place to live 94% 91% 92% Your neighborhood as a place to live 95% 87% 91% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 94% 87% 90% Palo Alto as a place to work 94% 84% 89% Palo Alto as a place to retire 59% 53% 56% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 96% 86% 91% Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Area North South Overall Sense of community 75% 59% 67% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 84% 68% 76% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 89% 80% 85% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 87% 82% 84% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 50% 38% 44% Variety of housing options 27% 25% 26% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 79% 64% 71% Shopping opportunities 78% 68% 73% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 79% 60% 69% Recreational opportunities 86% 75% 81% Employment opportunities 72% 63% 68% Educational opportunities 92% 84% 87% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 83% 65% 74% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 81% 71% 75% Opportunities to volunteer 83% 80% 82% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Area North South Overall Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 52% 58% 55% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 45% 30% 37% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 71% 58% 65% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 78% 78% 78% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 88% 80% 84% Availability of paths and walking trails 76% 66% 71% Traffic flow on major streets 33% 35% 34% Amount of public parking 41% 38% 39% Availability of affordable quality housing 14% 13% 13% Availability of affordable quality child care 34% 28% 31% Availability of affordable quality health care 63% 61% 62% Availability of affordable quality food 67% 67% 67% Availability of preventive health services 79% 68% 73% Air quality 83% 80% 81% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 85% 81% 83% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 89% 90% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook 72% 72% 72% Question 3: Growth (Percent of respondents) Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Area North South Overall Population growth too fast 60% 60% 60% Retail growth too slow 13% 18% 16% Job growth too slow 27% 33% 30% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 4: Code Enforcement (Percent a "major" problem) Area North South Overall Run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicle a major problem in Palo Alto 3% 5% 4% Question 5: Community Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Area North South Overall Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 80% 79% 79% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 59% 59% 59% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 88% 79% 83% Question 6: Personal Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Area North South Overall In your neighborhood during the day 97% 97% 97% In your neighborhood after dark 73% 71% 72% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 95% 91% 93% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 64% 59% 62% Question 7: Contact with Police Department (Percent "yes") Area North South Overall Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Police Department within the last 12 months? 33% 33% 33% Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Police Department (Percent "excellent" or "good") Area North South Overall What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department? 74% 87% 81% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Questions 9 and 10: Crime Victimization and Reporting (Percent "yes") Area North South Overall During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 8% 4% 6% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 86% 84% 86% Question 11: Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Area North South Overall Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 73% 80% 77% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 59% 57% 58% Participated in a recreation program or activity 53% 51% 52% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 95% 94% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 39% 30% 34% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 30% 26% 28% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 25% 23% 24% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 77% 85% 81% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 98% 97% 98% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 54% 46% 50% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 33% 26% 29% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 94% 91% 92% Read Palo Alto Newspaper 89% 92% 91% Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 50% 42% 46% Question 12: Neighborliness (Percent at least several times a week) Area North South Overall Visit with neighbors at least several times a week 43% 41% 42% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 13: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Area North South Overall Police services 87% 84% 86% Fire services 92% 94% 93% Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 92% 93% Crime prevention 73% 77% 75% Fire prevention and education 85% 80% 82% Traffic enforcement 65% 63% 64% Street repair 43% 50% 47% Street cleaning 73% 78% 76% Street lighting 69% 64% 66% Sidewalk maintenance 55% 57% 56% Traffic signal timing 52% 54% 53% Bus or transit services 52% 47% 49% Garbage collection 86% 84% 85% Storm drainage 66% 72% 69% Drinking water 89% 87% 88% Sewer services 85% 84% 84% City parks 95% 91% 93% Recreation programs or classes 89% 85% 87% Recreation centers or facilities 80% 81% 80% Land use, planning and zoning 35% 37% 36% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 60% 57% Animal control 76% 77% 76% Economic development 61% 61% 61% Services to seniors 86% 62% 74% Services to youth 84% 68% 75% Services to low-income people 48% 42% 45% Public library services 86% 83% 85% Public information services 74% 72% 73% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 13: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Area North South Overall Public schools 97% 91% 94% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 84% 72% 77% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 81% 78% 79% Neighborhood branch libraries 81% 79% 80% Your neighborhood park 89% 87% 88% Variety of library materials 83% 79% 81% Street tree maintenance 68% 65% 66% Electric utility 83% 79% 81% Gas utility 84% 78% 81% Recycling collection 90% 84% 87% City's Web site 71% 68% 69% Art programs and theatre 85% 79% 82% Question 14: Government Services Overall (Percent "excellent" or "good") Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Area North South Overall The City of Palo Alto 87% 81% 84% The Federal Government 35% 39% 37% The State Government 30% 37% 33% Santa Clara County Government 44% 50% 47% Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity (Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely) Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Area North South Overall Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 89% 89% 89% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 86% 88% 87% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 16: Impact of the Economy (Percent "somewhat" or "very" positive) Area North South Overall What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 37% 27% 32% Question 17: Contact with Fire Department (Percent "yes") Area North South Overall Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto Fire Department within the last 12 months? 8% 13% 10% Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department (Percent "excellent" or "good") Area North South Overall What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department? 87% 94% 92% Question 19: Contact with City Employees (Percent "yes") Area North South Overall Have you had any in-person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 54% 45% 49% Question 20: City Employees (Percent "excellent" or "good") What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Area North South Overall Knowledge 84% 84% 84% Responsiveness 76% 78% 77% Courtesy 82% 86% 84% Overall impression 78% 80% 79% Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 21: Government Performance (Percent "excellent" or "good") Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Area North South Overall The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 68% 65% 66% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 60% 48% 54% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 55% 54% 55% Attachment A Attachment A 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001133 TTrreenndd RReeppoorrtt Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Trends over Time ............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of this report ................................................................................................................. 1 Understanding the Tables .......................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Trends .................................................................................................................... 1 Comparisons .................................................................................................................... 3 Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . TT rr ee nn dd ss oo vv ee rr TT ii mm ee PP UU RR PP OOSSEE OOFF TTHHIISS RR EE PPOO RRTT Each year that a jurisdiction conducts The NCS, the report examines changes from the previous administration. When a jurisdiction has conducted The NCS many times, it is worthwhile to step back to examine the entire trend line. This helps avoid missing possible long term changes that are not seen year to year. This report highlights changes that are notable from the first iteration in 2003 to this administration in 2013. Where resident perspectives have improved (by six percentage points or more) since the first administration of a question the trend is highlighted in green; when ratings have declined (by six percentage points or more) the trend is highlighted in gray. UUNNDDEERRSSTT AA NN DD IINNGG TT HH EE TTAABBLLEESS The tables in the following pages show Palo Alto’s trends over time for both survey results and national benchmark comparisons. When available, the “percent positive” has been noted for each survey year, starting in 2003 through 2013. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once. Also displayed when available is Palo Alto’s comparison to the national benchmark for each year available. (Note that these comparisons are a reiteration of the benchmark the City has received in the past and not a recalculation of the benchmark). These benchmark comparisons results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark (↑), “lower” than the benchmark (↓) or “similar” to the benchmark (↔), meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” (↑↑) or “much lower” (↓↓). SSUU MM MM AA RR YY OOFF TTRREENNDDSS Although for most questions, the sentiments of Palo Alto residents remained unchanged across 11 years, there were a few improvements that would not have been obvious without this long term view. Especially interesting has been the long term improvement in resident sentiment about the economy in Palo Alto. Improvements are apparent for job opportunities, Palo Alto as a place to work, increase in retail growth and economic development ratings. Other notable rating changes took place for a variety of community features and services. Opportunities for affordable housing were better in 2013 as were ratings for sidewalk maintenance. Crime victimization was down while reporting of those crimes to police was up. Ratings for emergency preparedness, opportunities for affordable quality child care and youth services also improved over the decade of assessment. Declines in resident sentiment since 2003 include those related to mobility. Lower ratings were given to ease of bicycle travel, transit service and the amount of public parking. Although affordable housing ratings rose, the variety of housing options and the quality of new development declined. While crime victimization was down, so were ratings about crime prevention and feelings of safety from property crimes. Over the decade, garbage collection quality has slipped according to residents as have education opportunities. As the national and local economies have gained steam, so has the concern among Palo Alto residents about population growth. Compared to Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . 2003, when the question was first asked, a larger percent of residents in 2013 felt that population growth is too fast. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Overall Community Quality Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat likely) Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 93% 90% 92% 94% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Your neighborhood as place to live 88% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks NA NA NA NA NA 83% 79% 81% 83% 83% 89% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years NA NA NA NA NA 81% 81% 80% 81% 81% 87% NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Community Transportation Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 55% 52% 61% 60% 65% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 41% 43% 44% 44% 37% 34% 36% 39% 37% 42% 37% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↓ Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto NA 64% 69% 60% 55% 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% NA ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 84% 80% 79% 78% 84% 78% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Ease of walking in Palo Alto NA NA 86% 87% 88% 86% 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Availability of paths and walking trails NA NA NA NA NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Traffic flow on major streets 36% 39% 41% 39% 45% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↓↓ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Transportation and Parking Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Street repair 50% 47% 48% 47% 47% 47% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ Street cleaning 75% 77% 74% 77% 77% 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Street lighting 67% 65% 63% 66% 61% 64% 64% 68% 65% 68% 66% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ Sidewalk maintenance 50% 50% 51% 53% 57% 53% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ Traffic signal timing NA 57% 49% 55% 60% 56% 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% NA ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ Bus or transit services 89% NA NA 58% 57% 49% 50% 45% 46% 58% 49% ↑↑ NA NA ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↓ Amount of public parking NA 56% 56% 58% 65% 52% 55% 60% 54% 51% 39% NA ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ Frequency of Bus Use Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 28% 30% 34% 32% 28% 33% 31% 31% 28% 35% 34% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Drive Alone Percent of trips Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 61% 63% 55% 55% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Housing Characteristics Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 7% 8% 11% 10% 12% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Variety of housing options NA NA NA NA NA 34% 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Housing Costs Percent of respondents Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) NA NA NA NA NA 31% 35% 34% 36% 29% 31% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↓ ↓ Built Environment Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Quality of new development in Palo Alto NA NA 56% 62% 57% 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ Overall appearance of Palo Alto 87% 86% 85% 85% 86% 89% 83% 83% 89% 89% 85% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Population Growth Percent of respondents Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Population growth seen as too fast 40% 39% 49% 44% 55% 51% 54% 49% 50% 46% 60% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ Nuisance Problems Percent rating as major problem Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem 81% 82% 79% 83% 82% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Land use, planning and zoning 41% 48% 46% 50% 49% 47% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 55% 59% 56% 61% 59% 59% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Animal control 79% 79% 79% 78% 79% 78% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Employment opportunities 33% 43% 45% 59% 61% 61% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Shopping opportunities NA NA 75% 80% 79% 71% 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Palo Alto as a place to work NA NA 81% 84% 90% 90% 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 77% 73% 75% 74% 79% 71% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Job and Retail Growth Percent of respondents Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Retail growth seen as too slow 18% 21% 25% 26% 29% 28% 34% 31% 35% 19% 16% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Jobs growth seen as too slow 76% 69% 63% 49% 38% 48% 65% 67% 64% 44% 30% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Economic Development Services Benchmarks Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Economic development 48% 58% 55% 61% 62% 63% 54% 49% 52% 67% 61% ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Personal Economic Future Percent of respondents Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Positive impact of economy on household income 26% 28% 21% 26% 26% 4% 12% 15% 11% 22% 32% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↑ ↑↑ Community and Personal Public Safety Percent rating as very or somewhat safe Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 In your neighborhood during the day 97% 98% 98% 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 98% 96% 97% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ In your neighborhood after dark 83% 82% 84% 79% 85% 78% 78% 83% 83% 82% 72% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 95% 94% 96% 91% 94% 96% 91% 94% 91% 92% 93% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 71% 76% 69% 69% 74% 65% 65% 70% 65% 71% 62% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔ Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 84% 84% 87% 75% 86% 85% 82% 85% 85% 87% 79% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 73% 71% 76% 62% 75% 74% 66% 75% 71% 61% 59% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↔ Environmental hazards, including toxic waste NA NA NA 83% 85% 80% 81% 83% 84% 81% 83% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Crime Victimization and Reporting Percent yes Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Victim of crime 13% 11% 10% 12% 9% 10% 11% 9% 9% 9% 6% NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Reported crimes (of those who were the victim of a crime) 80% 62% 69% 62% 62% 73% 80% 86% 71% 62% 86% NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↑ ↑↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑ Public Safety Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Police services 89% 90% 87% 87% 91% 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ Fire services 96% 97% 94% 95% 98% 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 95% 95% 94% 94% 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Crime prevention NA 86% 86% 77% 83% 74% 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ Fire prevention and education NA 85% 82% 84% 86% 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% NA ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ Traffic enforcement 64% 64% 63% 63% 72% 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ Courts 74% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Public Safety Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) NA NA NA NA NA 71% 62% 59% 64% 73% 77% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ Contact with Police and Fire Departments Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, excellent/good) Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32% 31% 33% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓ ↓ Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Police Department NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 74% 75% 81% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↑↑ Had contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12% 8% 10% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↓ ↓ Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Palo Alto Fire Department NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 95% 92% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↑ ↔ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Environment Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Cleanliness of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 88% 85% 85% 88% 86% 84% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 85% 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts NA NA NA NA NA 78% 82% 78% 76% 81% 79% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Air quality NA NA NA 80% 79% 75% 73% 77% 77% 81% 81% NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Frequency of Recycling Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 98% 97% 82% 84% 87% 99% 99% 98% 96% 99% 98% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Utility Services Benchmarks Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Sewer services 84% 80% 82% 83% 83% 81% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Drinking water 82% 74% 80% 80% 79% 87% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Storm drainage 65% 57% 60% 61% 59% 70% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Yard waste pick- up 88% 88% 91% 90% 93% 89% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ NA NA NA NA NA Recycling 90% 90% 91% 92% 93% 90% 90% 90% 91% 86% 86% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ NA NA Garbage collection 94% 91% 92% 92% 91% 92% 89% 88% 89% 89% 85% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Recreational Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Recreation opportunities NA NA NA 83% 85% 82% 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 53% 60% 62% 63% 67% 68% 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔ Participated in a recreation program or activity 49% 50% 52% 54% 53% 56% 49% 50% 53% 50% 52% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ Visited a neighborhood park or City park 92% 91% 93% 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Parks and Recreation Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 City parks 90% 91% 92% 87% 91% 89% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Recreation programs or classes 83% 85% 87% 85% 90% 87% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Recreation centers or facilities 77% 84% 78% 81% 82% 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Cultural and Educational Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Opportunities to attend cultural activities NA 83% 77% 85% 81% 79% 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Educational opportunities NA NA NA 93% 94% 93% 91% 90% 90% 90% 87% NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 80% 77% 79% 76% 79% 74% 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 40% NA NA NA 40% NA NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ NA NA NA ↓↓ NA Cultural and Educational Services Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Public schools NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Public library services 81% 81% 80% 78% 81% 75% 78% 82% 83% 88% 85% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↔ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Health and Wellness Access and Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Availability of affordable quality health care NA NA NA 57% 56% 57% 63% 62% 59% 68% 62% NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Availability of affordable quality food NA NA NA 62% 71% 64% NA NA 66% 68% 67% NA NA NA ↔ ↑↑ ↑ NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ Availability of preventive health services NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% 67% 72% 76% 73% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Community Quality and Inclusiveness Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Sense of community 70% 69% 68% 66% 70% 70% 71% 71% 75% 73% 67% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 73% 72% 75% 79% 77% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Availability of affordable quality child care 25% 25% 26% 35% 26% 28% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Palo Alto as a place to raise kids 90% 93% 92% 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Palo Alto as a place to retire 62% 63% 60% 68% 61% 67% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Services Provided for Population Subgroups Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Services to seniors 77% 82% 78% 84% 79% 81% 82% 79% 80% 76% 74% ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Services to youth 66% 68% 68% 70% 73% 73% 75% 70% 78% 75% 75% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Services to low income people NA 37% 45% 54% 46% 46% 59% 49% 51% 52% 45% NA ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ Civic Engagement Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA NA NA NA 75% 76% 76% 71% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ NA NA Opportunities to volunteer NA NA NA NA NA 86% 83% 81% 80% 80% 82% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 30% 28% 30% 27% 26% 26% 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 28% 27% 29% 31% 26% 26% 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% NA NA NA NA NA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 49% 52% 52% 53% 52% 51% 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA 34% 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↔ Provided help to a friend or neighbor NA NA NA NA NA 93% 93% 92% 90% 90% 92% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↔ Voter Behavior Percent yes Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Registered to vote 78% 83% 80% 77% 79% 80% 83% 81% 80% 81% 80% NA NA NA NA NA ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↓ Voted in last general election 72% 78% 79% 70% 76% 75% 79% 75% 76% 75% 81% NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Use of Information Sources Percent at least once Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Read Palo Alto Newsletter NA 62% 63% 84% 83% 83% NA N A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ↔ NA NA NA NA NA Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site NA NA 52% 54% 62% 78% 75% 79% 76% 79% 81% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Public information services 72% 77% 74% 72% 73% 76% 68% 67% 67% 74% 73% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Social Engagement Opportunities Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities NA NA NA NA NA 80% 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% NA NA NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities NA NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA 84% 75% NA NA NA NA NA ↑ NA NA NA ↑ ↔ Contact with Immediate Neighbors Percent at least several times per week Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week NA NA NA NA NA 72% 81% 42% 49% 50% 42% NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↔ ↓↓ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Public Trust Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto* NA NA 70% 74% 67% 64% 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking* 54% 63% 54% 62% 57% 63% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% ↔ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↓ Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement* 65% 70% 59% 73% 68% 57% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↓ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 54% 60% 50% 59% 53% 52% 51% NA NA NA NA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↔ NA NA NA NA Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto NA NA NA 91% 93% 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% NA NA NA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ *For jurisdictions that have conducted The NCS prior to 2008, this change in the wording of response options may cause a decline in the percent of residents who offer a positive perspective on public trust. It is well to factor in the possible change due to question wording this way: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a slight decrease, community sentiment is probably about stable. Attachment A City of Palo Alto | 2013 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 87% 90% 88% 87% 86% 85% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ Services provided by the Federal Government 32% 38% 32% 33% 33% 33% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% ↓ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↔ Services provided by the State Government 31% 35% 32% 38% 44% 34% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% ↓ ↔ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ ↓ Services provided by Santa Clara County Government NA NA NA NA NA 54% 42% 48% 45% 60% 47% NA NA NA NA NA ↑ ↓ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ Contact with City Employees Percent yes Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months 62% 64% 56% 54% 57% 54% 58% 56% 43% 44% 49% NA NA NA NA NA ↓ ↔ ↔ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↔ Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Percent rating as excellent or good Comparison to benchmark 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Knowledge 85% 85% 84% 83% 85% 75% 84% 81% 80% 85% 84% ↑ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↔ ↔ ↑ ↔ Responsiveness 74% 83% 77% 78% 80% 73% 78% 75% 78% 76% 77% ↔ ↔ ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ Courteousness 83% 84% 83% 83% 84% 78% 84% 82% 82% 89% 84% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑↑ ↑ Overall impression 78% 84% 79% 79% 79% 73% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ Attachment A CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR March 17, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Performance Report for FY 2013 (formerly the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report) The Office of the City Auditor presents the 12th annual Performance Report (formerly the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report) for the City of Palo Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 (FY 2013). The report incorporates results from the annual National Citizen Survey™ which is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. and the International City/County Management Association. The Performance Report is intended to supplement the City’s financial reports and statements with additional performance data, trends, and comparisons. Our goal is to provide the City Council, staff, and the public with an independent, impartial assessment of past performance to help inform future decisions. This report uses financial data obtained from various City documents as well as directly from departments. Revenue and expenditures data is primarily based on FY 2013 Actuals from the City’s budget. An alternative view of the data, based on the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), can be seen at a high level in the Citizen Centric Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Performance Report for FY 2013 (PDF) Department Head: Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO PERFORMANCE REPORT 2013 The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. Quality Superior delivery of services Courtesy Providing service with respect and concern Efficiency Productive, effective use of resources Integrity Straightforward, honest and fair relations Innovation Excellence in creative thought and implementation MISSION VALUES Service Efforts and Accomplishments Office of the City Auditor March 10, 2014 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Performance Report for FY 2013 This is the Office of the City Auditor’s 12th annual Performance Report (formerly known as the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report) for the City of Palo Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 (FY 2013). The mission of the Office of the City Auditor is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government, and this report is a critical component in our successful implementation of that mission. The goal of this report is to provide the residents of Palo Alto, the City Council, City staff, and other stakeholders with information on past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support ongoing decision making. To facilitate this, the report includes data about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. It includes comparisons to other cities, the results of the National Citizen SurveyTM, and data from various other sources including the California State Controller’s Office, the United States Census Bureau, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Working closely with each of the City departments, we consider all of this data and identify what we believe best represents the overall performance of the City and its individual departments and divisions. OVERALL SATISFACTION The 11th annual National Citizen SurveyTM, administered in conjunction with this report, indicates high ratings for City services. The chart below illustrates the survey responses to some of the questions we feel best represent the overall value of City services. The chart at the right illustrates Palo Alto’s rankings in key service areas when compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. 66% 54% 55% 90% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Citizen Survey: Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent” 97th 99th 74th 79th 80th 1st 2nd 13th 0%20%40%60%80%100% Educational Opportunities Place to Work Place to Live Place to Raise Children Overall Quality of Life Affordable Housing Housing Options Affordable, Quality Child Care Citizen Survey: Percentile Rank Compared to Other Surveyed Jurisdictions Source: National Citizen SurveyTM Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 3 Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto City government welcoming citizen involvement OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS, AND COUNCIL PRIORITIES In FY 2013, the City’s General Fund expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $164.1 million, an increase of about 1 percent from last year and an increase of 16 percent from FY 2008. Palo Alto’s estimated population increased 1 percent from last year and 7 percent from FY 2008 while the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, a measure of inflation, increased about 3 percent and 9 percent over the same periods, respectively. In FY 2013, total City authorized staffing, including temporary and hourly positions was 1,129 full-time equivalent employees (FTE). FY 2013 General Fund expenditures were $6,095 per household. On a per capita basis, FY 2013 General Fund expenditures of $2,400 included: Governmental Funds have invested $159.3 million in capital projects since FY 2008 and the Infrastructure Reserve decreased from $17.9 million in FY 2008 to $17.5 million in FY 2013. Capital spending in FY 2013 totaled $70.2 million including $29.5 million in Governmental Funds and $40.7 million in Enterprise Funds. The City Council established the following top priority areas for calendar year 2013: 1) The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability, 2) Infrastructure Strategy and Funding , and 3) Technology and the Connected City. This report provides information about the mission and work of each of the City’s departments. The background section includes a community profile, discussion of service efforts and accomplishments (performance) reporting, and information about the preparation of this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall City spending and staffing. Chapters 2 through 11 include the mission statements, description of services, workload, selected performance measures, and selected survey results for the various City departments and services. This report was designed to be viewed in color and is available on our website. Color hardcopies of this report and the National Citizen SurveyTM have been distributed to each of the City’s library branches and are also available from the Office of the City Auditor. We thank the departments and staff that contributed to this report. Respectfully submitted, Houman Boussina Acting City Auditor Audit Staff: Yuki Matsuura, Mimi Nguyen, Deniz Tunc, Lisa Wehara $485 $349 $378 $324 $263 $198 $181 $117 $104 Police Services Fire & Emergency Op Transfers Out Community Services Administrative Public Works Planning & Community Env.Non-Departmental Library $2,400 per resident Source: City of Palo Alto Financial Data 4 MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (from the City Manager) 5 Palo Alto continues to be a community which draws engaged, committed and highly educated individuals who are attracted to its high quality of life. With a dynamic, creative economy, rising home values, excellent schools, a low crime rate and an abundance of opportunities, the City is viewed as a highly desirable place to live and work. The 2013 National Citizen SurveyTM continues to highlight that residents experience a good or excellent quality of life in Palo Alto, rate it particularly high as a place to work, and believe the City provides a high level of services. The intersection of innovation and entrepreneurship that has produced so many ideas and businesses combined with the City’s financial stewardship has positioned our community well for the future. While revenues are on a trend upward, the City has continued to proactively manage its budget to ensure fiscal responsibility and stability, as well as focus on containing long-term expense liabilities. The City Council adopted a General Fund budget of $159.7 million for FY 2014 that is balanced and does not contain significant cost or service reductions such as those included in prior years as we dealt with the severe economic downturn. Our prior actions to reduce employee compensation and benefit costs are evident as the FY 2014 budget allowed us to fund a series of important one-time investments, as well as to fill key vacant positions. Overall, however, General Fund staffing levels remained flat. In terms of housing, home sale values surged from $1.23 million in 2009 to $1.8 million in 2013, a 46% average increase for sellers. This has translated to a blistering compound annual growth rate of 19% in property transfer tax revenues since FY 2010. The City Council adopted a new set of priorities for FY 2013 that included: 1) The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking and Livability, 2) Infrastructure Strategy and Funding, and 3) Technology and the Connected City. Here are a few highlights: The City Council approved the award of a consultant contract for phase one of a downtown cap study, which is the first comprehensive study of transportation and development policies conducted in the past 25 years. The design for the California Avenue transit hub streetscape design was completed, and the City certified its Housing Element for the 2007-2014 planning period. The Council put into motion the framework for a Residential Parking Permit Program to address growing parking concerns in neighborhoods, and eliminated a number of long standing parking exemptions that were no longer effective. To address growing concerns about transportation and mobility, the Council committed to address possible Transportation Demand Management solutions to reduce solo driving. Public opinion research surveys to assess the feasibility of placing a revenue measure on the November 2014 ballot informed the process, and the City is on track to make a recommendation on the structure of a funding measure sometime in 2014. The Main Library renovation is progressing, with a groundbreaking held in 2013 with completion anticipated by the end of 2014. The completion of the Mitchell Park Library and Community is anticipated to occur sometime in 2014 as well. Under the Council’s leadership, the annual budget to improve our streets was increased to $5.1 million, and we have paved 41 lane miles or almost 10% of our City. Funding for the City’s Sidewalks to School routes increased by $1 million, and we replaced 98,000 square feet of sidewalks – almost doubling the level of improvements. In addition, the City made renovation improvements to Ventura Park and opened a household hazardous waste facility near the water quality treatment plant. As a center for technology and innovation, Palo Alto has renewed its interest in the feasibility of an expanded Fiber-to-the-Premise network for the City. In the summer of 2013, we activated a powerful high speed City-provided service of fast and reliable WiFi in Cogswell Plaza with plans to deploy more widely across the City. The City launched CityCamp Palo Alto as part of the nation’s first formal day of civic hacking to bring together local government and the community. We also launched Palo Alto 311, a mobile app that allows citizens to report Public Works related issues and problems 24/7. The City also enhanced its Open GIS data platforms as developers and the public can now create applications on areas of City operations such as permitting information, etc. MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (continued) 6 While we are seeing the results of an economy that has clearly ramped up over the past 18 months, the City continues to look beyond the immediate horizon and ensure financial stability for the long term. The decisions and actions that we take today to address fiscal challenges will create a foundation for the future that is stable and sustainable. Together, as a community, we can promote and nurture the spirit of innovation and visionary thinking while ensuring that Palo Alto’s fundamental structure remains sound. James Keene City Manager BACKGROUND 8 Chapter 7 (continued) Introduction 8 Transportation 72 Community Profile 9 Development Services - Building 73 Sense of Community 10 Development Services – Green Building 74 Quality of Services 11 Data Tables 75 Palo Alto City Government 12 Chapter 8: POLICE DEPARTMENT 79 Scope and Methodology 13 Departmentwide 80 Chapter 1: OVERALL 17 Crime 83 Overall Spending 18 Calls for Service 84 Overall Staffing 19 Animal Services 85 Capital Spending 20 Traffic and Parking Control 86 City Council Priorities 21 Data Tables 87 Data Tables 22 Chapter 9: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 91 Chapter 2: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 25 Departmentwide 92 Departmentwide 26 Public Services – Streets, Sidewalks & Facilities 94 Arts & Sciences 28 Public Services – Trees 95 Open Space, Parks, and Golf 30 Engineering Services 96 Recreation Services 33 Storm Drainage 99 Data Tables 35 Wastewater Treatment 100 Chapter 3: FIRE DEPARTMENT 41 Refuse 101 Departmentwide 42 City Vehicles and Equipment 102 Emergency Response 45 Data Tables 103 Environmental Safety Management 46 Chapter 10: STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES 109 Training and Personnel 47 Overall 110 Data Tables 48 Office of the City Manager 111 Chapter 4: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT 51 Office of the City Attorney 112 Departmentwide 52 Office of the City Clerk 113 Data Tables 53 Office of the City Auditor 114 Chapter 5: LIBRARY DEPARTMENT 55 Administrative Services Department 115 Departmentwide 56 People Strategy and Operations 116 Collection and Technical Services 59 Data Tables 117 Public Services 60 Chapter 11: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 119 Data Tables 61 Departmentwide 120 Chapter 6: OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 63 Electric 122 Departmentwide 64 Fiber Optics 123 Data Table 65 Gas 124 Chapter 7: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 67 Water 125 Departmentwide 68 Wastewater Collection 126 Current Planning & Code Enforcement 70 Data Tables 127 Advance Planning 71 Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s 7 INTRODUCTION This is the twelfth annual Performance Report (formerly Service Efforts and Accomplishment or SEA Report) for the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of the report is to provide consistent, reliable information on the performance of City services to: •Support users in assessing whether the City is achieving its goals and objectives in an efficient and effective manner; and •Assist the City in meeting its responsibilities to be publicly accountable in the stewardship of public resources. The report contains summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013 (FY 2013). It also includes the results of a resident survey rating the quality of City services. The report provides two comparisons: •Historical trends for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. •Selected comparisons to other cities. There are many ways to look at services and performance. This report looks at services on a department-by-department basis. All City departments are included in this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall spending and staffing since FY 2008, as well as an overall discussion on resident perceptions and the City Council’s priorities. Chapters 2 through 11 present the mission statements, descriptions of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for the following City departments: •Community Services Department •Fire Department •Information Technology Department •Library Department •Office of Emergency Services Department •Planning and Community Environment Department •Police Department •Public Works Department •Strategic and Support Services (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services, and People Strategy and Operations) •Utilities Department Chapters generally begin by providing performance information and financial data for the department as a whole and continue with highlights for divisions, services, or programs within the department. At the end of each chapter, selected data is presented in tables. Ba c k g r o u n d The City’s Open Data Platform provides access to a variety of publicly available data sets for informational purposes. The platform is accessible at the following address: http://paloalto.opendata.junar.com/ 8 COMMUNITY PROFILE Incorporated in 1894, Palo Alto is a largely built-out community of 66,368 residents. The City covers approximately 26 square miles, stretching from the edges of San Francisco Bay to the ridges of the San Francisco peninsula. Located between San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. SELECTED KEY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010-2012 American Community Survey) Ba c k g r o u n d Residents Aged 25+ Holding Advanced Degrees Estimated Household Income 22% 38% 41% $49,999 or less $50,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Age Breakdown of Palo Alto Residents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Household Occupancy 6% 52% 42% Vacant Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Age of Housing Units by Decade 11% 5% 8% 10% 13% 29% 10% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Commuting to Work 64% 7% 6% 5% 10% 8% Drove Alone Carpooled Public Trans. Walked Other Means Worked at Home School Enrollment (3 yrs. & older enrolled in school) 8% 4% 37% 22% 29% Nursery/Preschool Kindergarten Elementary (1-8)High School (9-12) College or Graduate Year Householder Moved Into Unit 19% 42% 16% 10% 7% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2010 or later 2000 to 2009 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or prior Where Residents Were One Year Prior to Survey Palo Alto’s Median Age: 41.2 80% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bachelor's or Higher Graduate or Professional 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% Same House Same County Same State Different State Abroad 9 SENSE OF COMMUNITY Residents continue to generally give favorable ratings to the quality of Palo Alto as a community. This assessment is based upon residents’ responses to selected questions in the National Citizen SurveyTM. The chart below summarizes these responses. Ba c k g r o u n d 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Palo Alto as a place to live Quality of life in Palo Alto Palo Alto as a place to raise children Your neighborhood as a place to live Palo Alto as a place to work Educational opportunities Cleanliness of Palo Alto Overall appearance of Palo Alto Volunteer opportunities Recreational opportunities Openness and acceptance of diversity Shopping opportunities Employment opportunities Sense of community Palo Alto as a place to retire Quality of new development in Palo Alto Excellent Good Fair PoorSource: National Citizen SurveyTM Residents’ Ratings of Community Characteristics and the Quality of Life in Palo Alto 10 QUALITY OF CITY SERVICES Residents continue to generally give favorable ratings to the quality of services offered by the City of Palo Alto. This assessment is based upon residents’ responses to selected questions in the National Citizen SurveyTM. The chart below summarizes these responses. Ba c k g r o u n d 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Fire Services City Parks Recreation Programs/Classes Police Services Garbage Collection Public Library Services Gas Utility Electric Utility Preservation of Natural Areas Emergency Preparedness Services to Youth Public Information Services Services to Seniors Economic Development Code Enforcement Sidewalk Maintenance Street Repair Land Use, Planning, & Zoning Excellent Good Fair Poor Residents’ Ratings of the Quality of Selected Services in Palo Alto Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 11 PALO ALTO CITY GOVERNMENT Palo Alto residents elect nine members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered four-year terms. The Council appoints a number of boards and commissions, and each January, the Council elects a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor and adopts priorities for the calendar year. The City Council’s top three priorities for 2013 are shown on the right: Ba c k g r o u n d The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability Palo Alto Residents Sustainability City Council City Attorney City Auditor City Manager City Clerk Administrative Services Emergency Services Community Services Development Services Fire People Strategy & Operations Planning & Community Env. Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Technology and the Connected City Did You Know? Regular Council meetings are held on the first three Mondays of each month. Meetings are cablecast live in most cases (and replayed) on Government Channel 26 or 29 and broadcast via KZSU Radio, 90.1 FM. Video streaming of Council meetings may be accessed at http://www.midpenmedia.org/watch/stream/index.php Agendas are posted in front of City Hall in King Plaza on the elevator walls closest to Bryant Street on Wednesday evenings. You can see the Tentative Council Agenda in the Palo Alto Weekly on the Fridays preceding the City Council meetings and also at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp City Council’s Top 3 Priorities Information Technology Police Library 12 Public Works Utilities Note: This is the City’s FY 2014 Organizational Chart. The City’s FY 2013 Organizational Chart did not include the Office of Sustainability or the Development Services Department. Also, People Strategy and Operations was known as Human Resources. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The Office of the City Auditor prepared this report in accordance with its FY 2014 Work Plan. The scope of our review covered information and results for the City’s departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013 (FY 2013). We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We compiled and reviewed departmental data for reasonableness and consistency, based on our knowledge and information from comparable sources and prior years’ reports. Our reviews are not intended to provide assurance on the accuracy of data provided by City departments. Rather, we intend to provide reasonable assurance that the data present a picture of the efforts and accomplishments of the City departments and programs. Prior year data may differ from previous Performance Reports in some instances due to corrections or changes reported by City departments or other agencies. When possible, we have included in the report a brief explanation of internal or external factors that may have affected the performance results. However, while the report may offer insights on service results, this insight is for informational purposes and does not thoroughly analyze the causes of negative or positive performance. Some results or performance changes can be explained simply. For others, more detailed analysis by City departments or the Office of the City Auditor may be necessary to explain the results. This report can help focus efforts on the most significant areas of interest or concern. SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTING In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. The statement broadly described “why external reporting of SEA measures is essential to assist users both in assessing accountability and in making informed decisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations.” According to the statement, the objective of SEA reporting is to provide more complete information about a governmental entity’s performance than can be provided by the traditional financial statements and schedules, and to assist users in assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of services provided. In 2003, GASB issued a special report on Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication that describes 16 criteria state and local governments can use when preparing external reports on performance information.1 Using the GASB criteria, the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) initiated a Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting project in 2003, of which Palo Alto was a charter participant. In 2008, GASB issued Concept Statement No. 5, which amended Concept Statement No. 2 to reflect changes since the original statement was issued in 1994. In 2010, GASB issued “Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Performance Information.” The guidelines are intended to provide a common framework for the effective external communication of SEA performance information to assist users and governments. Other organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have long been advocates of performance measurement in the public sector. For example, the ICMA Performance Measurement Program provides local government benchmarking information for a variety of public services. The City of Palo Alto has reported various performance indicators for a number of years. In particular, the City’s budget document includes key performance measures which are developed by staff and reviewed by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. Performance measures include input, output, efficiency, and effectiveness measures. This Performance Report includes selected targets as reported by the departments that help provide context in measuring performance. Ba c k g r o u n d Footnote 1 A summary of the GASB special report on reporting performance information is online at www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/criteria_summary.pdf. 13 The AGA awarded Palo Alto a Gold Award for the FY 2011 SEA Report and a Certificate of Excellence in Citizen Centric Reporting for Palo Alto’s Citizen Centric Report. Palo Alto has also been honored with AGA’s Circle of Excellence Award in 2009 recognizing the City’s continued excellence in SEA reporting. These awards were AGA’s highest report distinctions making Palo Alto one of the top cities nationally for transparency and accountability in performance reporting. Although the AGA discontinued its award program for SEA reporting as of March 31, 2013, it continues to review Citizen Centric Reporting, and it awarded Palo Alto a Certificate of Excellence in Citizen Centric Reporting for the FY 2012 Citizen Centric Report. SELECTION OF INDICATORS We limited the number and scope of workload and performance measures in this report to items where information was available and meaningful in the context of the City’s performance, and items we thought would be of general interest to the public. This report is not intended to be a complete set of performance measures for all users. From the outset of this project, we decided to use existing data sources to the extent possible. We examined existing key performance measures in the City’s adopted budget documents. We reviewed performance measures and other financial reports from other jurisdictions and organizations, and we used audited information from the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).2,3 We cite departmental mission statements, goals, and objectives that are generally from the City’s annual operating budget which is approved by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. We obtained updated performance targets from each department, and held numerous discussions with City staff to determine what information was available and reliable, and best summarized the services they provide. Wherever possible we have included five years of historical data in addition to the current year’s data. Generally speaking, it takes at least three data points to show a trend. Although Palo Alto’s size precludes us from significantly disaggregating data (such as into many districts), where program data was available, we disaggregated the information. For example, we have disaggregated performance information about some services based on age of participant, location of service, or other relevant factors. Consistency of information is important to us. However, we occasionally add or delete some information that was included in a previous report. Performance measures and survey information in the report are noted as <NEW> if they did not appear in the prior year SEA Report or <REVISED> if there was a significant change in the methodology used to calculate the measure. We will continue to use feedback from the residents of Palo Alto, City Council, and City staff to ensure that the information we include in this report is meaningful and useful. We welcome your input. Please contact us with suggestions via email at city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM The National Citizen SurveyTM is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).4 Respondents in each jurisdiction are selected at random. Participation is encouraged with multiple mailings and self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. Surveys were mailed to a total of 1,200 Palo Alto households in August 2013. Completed surveys were received from 337 residents, for a response rate of 29 percent. Typical response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25 percent to 40 percent. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). The confidence interval for this survey of 1,200 residents is no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (337 completed surveys). Ba c k g r o u n d Footnotes 2 The budget is online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/budget.asp. The operating budget includes additional performance information. 3 The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/reporting.asp. 4 This report is available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp. 14 The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor.” Unless stated otherwise, the survey data included in this report displays the responses only from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item – “don’t know” answers have been removed. This report contains comparisons of survey data from prior years. Differences from the prior year can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than eight percentage points. The NRC has collected citizen survey data from approximately 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Inter-jurisdictional comparisons are available when similar questions are asked in at least five other jurisdictions. In most instances, there are over 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. When comparisons are available, results are noted as being “above,” “below,” and “similar” to the benchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). For questions related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem, the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar,” or “less.” In 2006, the ICMA and NRC announced “Voice of the People” awards for surveys conducted in the prior year. To win a Voice of the People Award for Excellence, a jurisdiction’s National Citizen SurveyTM rating for service quality must be one of the top three among all eligible jurisdictions and in the top 10 percent of all the jurisdictions in the NRC database of citizen surveys. Since the beginning of the award program, Palo Alto has won: 2005 – 5 categories (Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Police services), 2006 – 4 categories (Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, and Recreation services), 2007 – 5 categories (Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Recreation services), 2008 – 1 category (Garbage collection), 2009 – 1 category (Garbage collection). POPULATION For population figures, we used the most recent estimates of Palo Alto resident population from the California Department of Finance, as shown in the following table.5 Ba c k g r o u n d Footnotes 5 The Department of Finance periodically revises prior year estimates. Where applicable we used their revised population estimates to recalculate certain indicators in this report. 6 Additional information about the City’s departments can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/default.asp. We used population figures from sources other than the Department of Finance for some comparisons to other jurisdictions, but only in cases where comparative data was available only on that basis. Some departments serve expanded service areas.6 For example, the Fire Department serves Palo Alto, Stanford, and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. Year Population FY 2008 62,173 FY 2009 63,496 FY 2010 64,352 FY 2011 64,853 FY 2012 65,443 FY 2013 66,368 Change from last year +1.4% Change from FY 2008 +6.7% 15 City of Palo Alto Population Source: California Department of Finance INFLATION Financial data has not been adjusted for inflation. In order to account for inflation, readers should keep in mind that the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased by 2.6 percent from last year and increased by 9.2 percent from 2008, which affects the financial data that is included in this report. The index, from 2008 through 2013, can be seen in the table to the right. Ba c k g r o u n d Date Index June 2008 225.2 June 2009 225.7 June 2010 228.1 June 2011 233.6 June 2012 239.8 June 2013 245.9 Change from last year +2.6% Change from 2008 +9.2% ROUNDING AND PERCENT CHANGE For readability, most numbers in this report are rounded. In some cases, tables or graphs may not add up to 100 percent or to the exact total because of rounding. In most cases, the calculated “percent change from last year (FY 2012) and from FY 2008” is based on the percentage change in the underlying numbers, not the rounded numbers, and reflects the percent change between the current fiscal year (FY 2013), the last fiscal year (FY 2012), and from five years ago (FY 2008). Where the data are expressed in percentages, the change is the difference between the percentages being compared. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES Where possible, we included comparisons to nearby California cities. The choice of the cities that we use for our comparisons varies depending upon the availability of the data. Regardless of which cities are included, comparisons to other cities should be used carefully. We tried to include “apples to apples” comparisons, but differences in methodologies and program design may account for unexplained variances between cities. For example, the California State Controller’s Office gathers and publishes comparative financial information from all California cities. We used this information where possible, but noted that cities provide different levels of service and categorize expenditures in different ways. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of City management and staff from every City department. We would like to thank each department for contributing to this report as well as the City Council and community members who reviewed last year’s report and provided thoughtful comments. 16 Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers San Francisco – Oakland – San Jose, CA Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Palo Alto uses various funds to track Overall Spending in the City. The General Fund tracks all general revenues and governmental functions including parks, fire, police, libraries, planning, public works, and support services. These services are supported by general City revenues and program fees. Enterprise funds are proprietary funds used to report an activity for which a fee is charged to external users for goods or services. For Palo Alto, these include: Water, Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm Drainage, and Airport. Authorized Staffing is measured in full-time equivalent (FTE) which is a count of authorized salaried, hourly, and temporary positions within the City. In 2013, the City Council set three Council Priorities. The National Citizen SurveyTM provides some insights into residents’ perceptions in these areas: •The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability •Infrastructure Strategy and Funding •Technology and the Connected City The City spends sizeable resources on Capital Projects which are projects with a minimum cost of $50,000 that have a useful life of at least five to seven years, or extend the life or provide for a new functional use for an existing asset for at least five years. Chapter 1: Citywide Spending, Staffing, Resident Perceptions & Council Priorities Mission: The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. 17 General Fund Revenues* FY 13 Actual (in millions) % of Total Property Tax $28.7 17.2% Charges for Services $25.8 15.5% Sales Tax $25.6 15.4% Operating Transfers-In $19.9 12.0% Rental Income $12.9 7.7% Charges to Other Funds $11.7 7.0% Utility Users Tax $10.9 6.5% Transient Occupancy Tax $10.8 6.5% Permits & Licenses $8.6 5.2% Documentary Transfer Tax $6.8 4.1% Other Taxes & Fines $2.2 1.3% Other Revenue $1.6 1.0% Return on Investment $0.9 0.6% From Other Agencies $0.2 0.1% General Fund Dollars Used* FY 13 Actual (in millions) % of Total Salaries & Benefits $94.9 57.8% Transfer to Infrastructure $22.3 13.6% Allocated Charges $17.5 10.6% Contract Services $11.4 7.0% General Expense $10.0 6.1% Supplies & Materials $2.9 1.8% Operating Transfers Out $2.8 1.7% Rents & Leases $1.2 0.7% Facilities & Equipment Purchases $0.7 0.5% Debt Service $0.4 0.3% What were the sources of FY 2013 General Fund revenues? (Total = $166.7 million) How were the FY 2013 General Fund dollars used? (Total = $164.1 million) *Amounts are shown on a budgetary basis 18 Footnotes 1 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function, but which typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g. Cubberley lease payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District). May also include provision or placeholder for certain revenues and expenditures that are just an estimate at budget adoption time (e.g. salary and benefit concessions from bargaining units and possible increases in fee related revenues with the Council approval of Municipal Fee Schedule and Cost of Service study by a consultant). Can be one-time or ongoing depending on nature and frequency. 2 Comprised of Strategic & Support Services (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department), as well as City Council. 3 Funds transferred to Capital Projects, Debt Service, and/or Technology Internal Service Funds on an annual basis. Total Spending by General Fund Department (in millions) Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2008 ↓DOWN 2% from last year, ↑UP 1% from FY 2008 ↑UP 1% from last year, ↑UP 5% from FY 2008 ↑UP 17% from last year, ↑UP 25% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 1% from last year, ↑UP 1% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 2% from last year, NO CHANGE from FY 2008 ↑UP 3% from last year, ↑UP 1% from FY 2008 ↑UP 13% from last year, ↑UP 94% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 5% from last year, ↑UP 14% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 4% from last year, ↑UP 9% from FY 2008 Total General Fund spending in FY 2013 was $164.1 million Overall Spending In FY 2013, the City’s General Fund expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $164.1 million, a 1% increase from last year and a 16% increase from FY 2008. The San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, a measure of inflation, increased by 2.6% from last year and by 9.2% from FY 2008. General Fund Spending by Category Excludes Salaries & Benefits $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 (i n m i l l i o n s ) Debt Service Facilities & Equipment Purchases Rents & Leases Operating Transfers Out Supplies & Materials General Expense Contract Services Allocated Charges Transfer to Infrastructure Important: Salaries and benefits (58% of total General Fund expenditures in FY 2013) were excluded from this chart to give the reader better visibility over other types of General Fund spending. Details on salaries and benefits spending can be found on the next page (Overall Staffing). Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data ↑UP 27% from last year 19 Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e Citywide Staffing by Department 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 EGWWF Other Wastewater Treatment Fund Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Police Community Services Fire Strategic & Support Public Works Library Planning & Community Env Office of Emergency Services FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2008 2 ↑UP 74% from last year ↑UP 9% from last year, ↑UP 4% from FY 2008 ↑UP 2% from last year, ↑UP 1% from FY 2008 ↑UP 9% from last year, ↑UP 9% from FY 2008 ↑UP 3% from last year, ↑UP 10% from FY 2008 ↑UP 16% from last year, ↓DOWN 2% from FY 2008 ↑UP 3% from last year, ↓DOWN 17% from FY 2008 ↑UP 2% from last year, ↓DOWN 14% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 4% from last year, ↓DOWN 6% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 2% from last year, ↓DOWN 7% from FY 2008 ↓DOWN 30% from last year, ↓DOWN 24% from FY 2008 ↑UP 1% from last year, ↑UP 3% from FY 2008 Budgeted positions, some of which may not have been filled City staffing is measured in full-time equivalents (FTEs). In FY 2013, 1,129 FTE positions were authorized citywide, including 667 FTEs in General Fund departments and 462 FTEs in other funds. As of June 30, 2013, 137 budgeted FTEs were vacant. Authorized Staffing Per 1,000 Residents Overall Staffing General Fund Employee Costs $0.0 $50.0 $100.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 57.3 59.6 56.6 55.8 54.4 53.5 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.1 5.4 3.7 29.8 28.3 30.9 34.2 36.9 37.7 (i n m i l l i o n s ) Salaries/Wages Overtime Benefits Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Footnotes 1 Includes City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department. 2 Includes the Technology and other Internal Service Funds, Airport Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Revenue Funds. 3 Includes Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, and Fiber Optics Funds. 1 3 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 18.8 18.1 17.9 17.2 17.0 17.0 ↑UP 3% from last year, ↓DOWN 17% from FY 2008 20 Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e The FY 2013 combined Capital Budget (General Fund, Enterprise Funds, and other funds) is $62.9 million. The five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan for FY 2013-2017 was $269.9 million. The FY 2013-17 Proposed CIP Plan was developed in coordination with all City departments responsible for capital projects. The Infrastructure Reserve was created in 1998 to accumulate funding to repair or renovate existing buildings and facilities, streets and sidewalks, parks and open space, and transportation systems. The FY 2013 Capital Budget for the Enterprise Funds was $35.3 million. The City continues to proactively repair and replace utility poles, electrical substations, gas and water mains, and the plant system as needed. The Capital Budget for the Technology Fund (Internal Service Fund) was $2.5 million. The Technology Fund is used for technology projects designed to enhance service. Capital Spending $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $21.6 $21.5 $22.0 $35.5 $29.2 $29.5 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $36.1 $36.2 $29.7 $24.4 $27.6 $40.7 What Qualifies as a Capital Project? Must have a minimum cost of $50,000 for each stand-alone unit or combined project AND Must have a useful life of at least five to seven years (the purchase or project will still be functioning and not be obsolete at least five to seven years after implementation) OR Must extend the life of an existing asset or provide a new functional use for an existing asset for at least five years. Source: Administrative Services Department Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Capital Outlay – Governmental Funds (in millions) Capital Expenditures – Enterprise Funds (in millions) 21 Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e In 2013, the City Council chose three top priorities to receive particular, unusual, and significant attention during the year: 1)The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability 2)Infrastructure Strategy and Funding 3)Technology and the Connected City Perceptions of the City’s Performance Related to the Council Priorities Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent” City Council Priorities How does the City’s performance relate to the Council’s priorities? The graph illustrates certain questions from the National Citizen SurveyTM and an internal City employee survey that most closely relate to each of the Council Priorities. 0%20%40%60%80%100% Quality of new development in Palo Alto Traffic flow on major streets Amount of public parking Palo Alto as a place to live Overall appearance of Palo Alto Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto Information Technology (IT) services (City employee survey results)* Public information services FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 3% from last year ↓ DOWN 3% from FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 3% from last year* Future of Downtown & California Avenue: •Urban Design •Transportation •Parking •Livability Infrastructure Strategy & Funding Technology & Connected City ↓ DOWN 12% from last year ↓ DOWN 13% FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 2% from last year ↓ DOWN 4% from FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 12% from last year ↓ DOWN 13% from FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 4% from last year ↓ DOWN 4% from FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 1% from last year ↑UP 2% from FY 2008 ↓ DOWN 1% from last year ↓ DOWN 3% from FY 2008 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM and Internal City employee survey (IT Services) *FY 2008 data is not available. 22 General Fund Operating Expenditures and Other Uses of Funds (in millions) Enterprise Funds Community Services Fire1 Office of Emergency Services Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Administrative Departments2 Non- Departmental3 Operating Transfers Out4 TOTAL Operating Expenditures FY 08 $21.2 $24.0 - $6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $17.4 $7.4 $12.9 $141.8 $215.8 FY 09 $21.1 $23.4 - $6.2 $9.9 $28.2 $12.9 $16.4 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 FY 10 $20.5 $27.7 - $6.4 $9.4 $28.8 $12.5 $18.1 $8.7 $14.6 $146.9 $218.6 FY 11 $20.1 $28.7 - $6.5 $9.6 $31.0 $13.1 $15.9 $7.9 $11.0 $143.7 $214.0 FY 12 $20.9 $28.8 $0.6 $7.1 $10.3 $33.6 $13.2 $17.8 $7.7 $22.1 $162.1 $219.6 FY 13 $21.5 $27.3 $0.8 $6.9 $12.0 $32.2 $13.1 $17.4 $7.8 $25.1 $164.1 $220.5 Change from: Last year +3% -5% +27% -2% +17% -4% -1% -2% +1% +13% +1% 0% FY 08 +1% +14% - +1% +25% +9% +1% 0% +5% +94% +16% +2% Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e Footnotes 1 The City previously classified Office of Emergency Services (OES) financial data under the Fire Department for budgeting purposes. FY 2012 data was restated to remove OES expenditures. OES is included as a separate chapter in this report. 2 Comprised of Strategic & Support Services (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department), and City Council. 3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function which typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g. Cubberley lease payments to PAUSD). May also include a provision or placeholder for certain revenues and expenditures that are just an estimate at budget adoption time (e.g. salary and benefit concessions from bargaining units and possible increases in fee related revenues with the Council approval of Municipal Fee Schedule and Cost of Service study by a consultant). Can be one-time or ongoing depending on nature and frequency. 4 Funds transferred to Capital Projects, Debt Service, and/or Technology Internal Service Funds on an annual basis. 5 Adjusted for the expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). PER CAPITA SPENDING OVERALL SPENDING General Fund Expenditures Per Capita Community Services Fire1,5 Office of Emergency Services5 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Administrative Departments2 Non- Departmental3 Operating Transfers Out4 TOTAL General Fund Enterprise Funds Operating Expenditures Per Capita FY 08 $342 $316 - $110 $155 $473 $208 $279 $119 $208 $2,210 $3,471 FY 09 $333 $303 - $98 $156 $445 $203 $258 $108 $249 $2,152 $3,607 FY 10 $318 $355 - $99 $145 $448 $195 $282 $136 $227 $2,206 $3,397 FY 11 $309 $365 - $100 $147 $478 $202 $244 $122 $170 $2,138 $3,300 FY 12 $319 $364 $8 $108 $158 $514 $202 $271 $118 $338 $2,399 $3,355 FY 13 $324 $340 $9 $104 $181 $485 $198 $263 $117 $378 $2,400 $3,322 Change from: Last year +2% -6% +25% -4% +15% -6% -2% -3% 0% +12% 0% -1% FY 08 -5% +8% - -5% +17% +2% -5% -6% -2% +82% +9% -4% 23 Authorized Staffing (FTE1) – General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE1) – Other Funds CSD Fire Lib OES PCE Pol PWD S&SS2 Subtotal RF SDF WWTF EGWWF Other3 Subtotal TOTAL FY 08 147 128 56 - 54 169 71 108 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 FY 09 146 128 57 - 54 170 71 102 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 FY 10 146 127 55 - 50 167 65 95 705 38 10 70 252 77 446 1,151 FY 11 124 125 52 - 47 161 60 89 657 38 10 70 263 76 457 1,114 FY 12 123 125 54 2 46 161 57 87 655 38 9 71 263 78 459 1,114 FY 13 126 120 58 3 53 157 59 90 667 26 10 71 269 85 462 1,129 Change from: Last year +2% -4% +9% +74% +16% -2% +3% +3% +2% -30% +2% +1% +3% +9% +1% +1% FY 08 -14% -6% +4% - -2% -7% -17% -17% -9% -24% +1% +3% +10% +9% +6% -3% Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e Footnotes 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department. 3 Includes the Technology and other Internal Service Funds, Airport Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Revenue Funds. 4 Does not include overtime. 5 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund employee benefits as a percent of General Fund salaries and wages, excluding overtime. AUTHORIZED STAFFING CSD – Community Services OES – Office of Emergency Services RF – Refuse Fund EGWWF – Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Fiber Optics Fire – Fire Department Pol – Police Department SDF – Storm Drainage Fund Lib – Library Department PWD – Public Works Department WWTF – Wastewater Treatment Fund PCE – Planning & Community Environment S&SS – Strategic & Support Services Authorized Staffing (FTE) - Citywide General Fund Employee Costs Regular Temporary TOTAL Per 1,000 residents Salaries and wages4 (in millions) Overtime (in millions) Employee benefits (in millions) TOTAL Employee benefits rate5 Employee costs as a percent of total General Fund expenditures FY 08 1,077 91 1,168 18.8 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 $91.3 52% 64% FY 09 1,076 74 1,150 18.1 $59.6 $3.7 $28.3 $91.6 48% 65% FY 10 1,055 95 1,151 17.9 $56.6 $4.5 $30.9 $92.1 55% 63% FY 11 1,019 95 1,114 17.2 $55.8 $4.1 $34.2 $94.2 61% 66% FY 12 1,017 98 1,114 17.0 $54.4 $5.4 $36.9 $96.7 68% 60% FY 13 1,015 114 1,129 17.0 $53.5 $3.7 $37.7 $94.9 71% 58% Change from: Last year 0% +16% +1% 0% -2% -31% +2% -2% +3% -2% FY 08 -6% +24% -3% -10% -7% -11% +27% +4% +19% -6% 24 Governmental Funds (in millions) Enterprise Funds (in millions) Infrastructure Reserves Net general capital assets Capital outlay Depreciation Net Enterprise Funds capital assets Capital expenditures Depreciation FY 08 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 FY 09 $7.0 $364.3 $21.5 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 FY 10 $8.6 $376.0 $22.0 $14.4 $450.3 $29.7 $15.3 FY 11 $3.2 $393.4 $35.5 $14.4 $465.7 $24.4 $15.9 FY 12 $12.1 $413.2 $29.2 $16.4 $490.0 $27.6 $16.7 FY 13 $17.5 $428.9 $29.5 $15.9 $522.3 $40.7 $17.6 Change from: Last year +45% +4% +1% -3% +7% +48% +6% FY 08 -2% +22% +37% +43% +25% +13% +38% Ch a p t e r 1 Ci t y w i d e CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES CAPITAL SPENDING National Citizen SurveyTM The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and Livability Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Technology and the Connected City Percent rating the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” Percent rating traffic flow on major streets “good” or “excellent” Percent rating the amount of public parking “good” or “excellent” Percent Rating Palo Alto as a place to live “good” or “excellent” Percent rating the overall appearance of Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” Percent rating the value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” Percent rating Information Technology services “good” or “excellent”1 Percent rating public information services “good” or “excellent” FY 08 57% 38% 52% 95% 89% 64% - 76% FY 09 55% 46% 55% 94% 83% 58% - 68% FY 10 53% 47% 60% 95% 83% 62% - 67% FY 11 57% 40% 54% 94% 89% 66% - 67% FY 12 56% 36% 51% 95% 89% 67% 98% 74% FY 13 44% 34% 39% 92% 85% 66% 95% 73% Change from: Last year -12% -2% -12% -3% -4% -1% -3% -1% FY 08 -13% -4% -13% -3% -4% +2% - -3% Footnote 1 Based on an IT Department City employee survey. Data prior to FY 12 is not available. 25 The Arts and Sciences Division enriches the community with a diverse range of visual and performing arts, music, dance, and science programs for youth and adults, with a focus on family programs. The division manages the Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Community Theatre, Junior Museum and Zoo, Public Art Program, and the Cubberley Artist Studios Program. The Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division maintains and operates more than 4,000 acres of open space and urban parkland. The division offers programs in ecology and natural history in open space, maintenance of facilities for outdoor recreational use in city parks, and a full service golf complex. The Recreation Services Division provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community, establishing a culture of fitness and healthy living for families and individuals of all ages. Programs include childhood learning, youth development, and adult recreation. 41% 24% 21% 14% How are CSD dollars used? (Total = $21.6 million) Open Space, Parks, & Golf (41%) Recreation Services (24%) Arts and Sciences (21%) Administration & Human Services (14%) The Office of Human Services provides assistance to people in need by funding and coordinating grants to non- profit organizations while also referring those in need to services throughout the county. Human Services manages Project Safety Net, a community collaboration focusing on suicide prevention and youth well being. Chapter 2: Community Services Department Mission: To engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts, and sciences 28% 3% 2% 1% 66% What are the sources of CSD funding? (Total = $21.6 million) Service Fees (28%) Rentals and Leases (3%) State and Local Revenues (2%) Other External Revenues (1%) Other General Fund Revenues (66%) 26 Footnotes 1 The Department attributes the decrease since FY 2009 to the elimination of one staff member in the Family Resources program budget and the elimination of seven positions in Golf operations resulting from the outsourcing of golf course maintenance services. Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Volunteer Hours 146.7 145.9 146.4 123.8 122.7 125.5 100 110 120 130 140 150 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 14% decrease Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)1 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 51.5% 22.3% 17.5% 5.4% 2.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Salaries & Benefits (51.5%) Allocated Charges (22.3%) Contract Services (17.5%) General Expense (5.4%) Supplies & Materials (2.7%) Facilities & Equipment (0.3%) Operating Transfers Out (0.2%) Rents & Leases (0.1%) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data $342 $333 $319 $310 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 $319 FY 12 In FY 2013, about 41% of Department staff were temporary employees. CSD Per Capita Spending1 $325 FY 13 Many of the Department’s programs are supported by volunteers through collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups, community members, and students from local schools. Volunteers work on a wide range of projects including ushering, tree planting, and docent-led art tours. Source: Community Services Department 28,750 24,295 24,399 19,334 39,863 26,107 13,572 16,169 16,655 16,235 16,142 11,157 6,681 4,352 4,060 3,998 6,014 6,053 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Community Theatre Restorative/resource management projects Art Center 27 Footnote 1 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. Departmentwide Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s DEPARTMENT GOALS Provide high-quality, relevant, and diverse services for the public Ensure parks and recreational areas are safe and environmentally sensitive Provide innovative, well-managed programs and services Average Enrollment Per Class/Camp Offered1 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Camps Kids Adults Preschool 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Total Enrollment in Classes/Camps1 Camps Kids (excluding camps)Adults Preschool Source: Community Services Department Source: Community Services Department Did you know? The Office of Human Services and the Recreation Services Division support Project Safety Net (PSN), a multi‐agency task force including the Palo Alto Unified School District, addressing teen suicide prevention and the social and emotional health of youth and teens in Palo Alto. In collaboration with PSN, 460 teens and adults have been trained in suicide prevention between August 2012 and June 2013 using the technique of Question, Persuade, and Refer (QPR). For more information, visit the PSN website at http://www.psnpaloalto.com. The Department offers classes to the public on a variety of topics including recreation and sports, arts and culture, and nature and the outdoors. Classes for children include aquatics, sports, digital art, animation, music, and dance. Other classes are targeted specifically for adults, senior citizens, and preschool children. The Department attributes the decrease in enrollment to increased competition from private providers and reduced household spending on adult classes. The Department received additional funding in FY 2014 to establish its presence in the community and raise awareness of its programs through implementation of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. 28 Enrollment in Performing Arts and Art Classes, Camps, and Workshops Arts & Sciences Enrollment in the Children’s Theatre classes has increased by 348% since FY 2008, which the Department attributes to offering year round arts-based education and a program to teach theater classes in Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) schools. Source: Community Services Department Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Achieve a high level of customer satisfaction for all programs and services offered by the department Ensure programs are responsive to a broad range of needs within the community 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Music & Dance Children's Theatre Art Center Expenditures (000’s) FTE’s According to the Department, significant increases in FY 2012 are due to temporary Project LOOK! outreach programs and “On the Road” installations during the Art Center’s 18-month closure for renovation. Through a partnership between the City, the Palo Alto Center Foundation, and community members, the Art Center reopened in October 2012 with $7.9 million in facility enhancements including a new Children’s Wing with double the number of classrooms, renovated exhibition galleries, new lobby spaces, and landscaped outdoor spaces. Source: Community Services Department Art Center Exhibition Visitors and Project LOOK! and Outreach Attendance 17,198 15,830 17,244 13,471 29,717 9,865 6,900 8,353 8,618 6,773 14,238 10,472 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Exhibition visitors including estimated On the Road art installation visitors Attendance at Project LOOK! and Outreach Project LOOK! offers docent-led tours of exhibitions for K-12 school groups. Arts & Sciences Spending $72 $69 $70 $68 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Expenditures (in thousands) FTEs Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Expenditures per capita $4,606 $4,494 $4,573 $4,545 39.5 36.7 36.9 38.2 The Art Center was closed from May 2011 through October 2012. 29 Arts & Sciences Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Source: Community Services Department The Department attributes the increase in school program participants to additional school contracts funded by Partners In Education (PIE) and Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. During FY 2013, the Department offered hands-on science classes at eight public elementary schools in Palo Alto as well as one elementary school and two Boys and Girls Clubs in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Enrollment in Science Programs at the Junior Museum and Elementary Schools 2,722 3,300 6,971 6,614 9,701 10,689 2,089 2,054 2,433 1,889 2,575 2,363 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Estimated number of children participating in school programs Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps Source: Community Services Department Science Interpretation - Enrollment in Open Space Classes and Number of Outreach Classes 2,689 2,615 3,978 3,857 3,970 3,575 85 178 208 156 131 136 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Enrollment in open space interpretive classes Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach classes for school-age children Enr o l l m e n t Nu m b e r o f C l a s s e s 293% increase 33% increase The Department attributes the increase in classes and enrollment to school programs provided in the Baylands Nature Center and Foothills Park. The Junior Museum and Zoo began operation of these programs five years ago, and has since increased marketing to boost the number of schools utilizing this service. Attendance at Children’s Theatre Performances 19,811 14,786 24,983 27,345 27,907 25,675 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Source: Community Services Department 30% increase 30 Footnotes 1 Does not include 454 acres of developed parks and land maintained by Parks and Golf. Does not include City-owned land located in Montebello Open Space Preserve and Los Trancos Open Space Preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2 The Department attributes the increase in operating expenditures to the reorganization, transferring Golf from the Recreation and Golf Division to this new division, and to the increase in water rates charged to the division. Open Space, Parks, and Golf Open Space, Parks, and Golf Spending $91 $88 $1262 $132 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $5,839 $5,699 $8,2202 $8,748 35.9 30.2 30.7 31.3 Expenditures (in thousands) FTEs Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Maintain grounds in good condition and facilities in good repair Protect public land and utilize best management practices for environmental preservation Increase and diversify community involvement and volunteerism Citizen Survey: Ratings for Open Space (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Quality of overall natural environment Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands, and greenbelts Availability of paths or walking trails Palo Alto has 4,029 acres1 of open space that it maintains, consisting of Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park), Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park, and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve. Source: Community Services Department Restoration Projects Volunteer Hours and Number of Native Plants 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects Number of native plants in restoration projects A new greenhouse at the Baylands significantly boosted plant propagation. Source: National Citizen Survey™ Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Expenditures per capita 31 Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Open Space, Parks, and Golf Citizen Survey: Ratings for Parks (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 City parks Neighborhood park Source: National Citizen Survey™ $2.9 $3.0 $3.0 $3.2 $3.5 $3.8 $0.6 $0.7 $0.5 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.7 $0.7 $0.6 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 (i n m i l l i o n s ) Athletic fields on school district sites Athletic fields in City parks Parks and Landscape Maintenance 15% increase Maintenance Expenditures for Developed Parks/Land (Excludes Golf Course Maintenance) Source: Community Services Department Parks/Land Maintained # Acres Golf Course 181 Urban/neighborhood parks 157 City facilities 31 School athletic fields 43 Utility sites 11 Median strips 26 Business districts and parking lots 5 TOTAL 454 Compared to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 90th percentile for quality of City parks. Citizen Survey: Visited a Neighborhood Park or City Park 48% 46% 49% 41% 42% 46% 31% 33% 31% 32% 35% 33% 14% 15% 14% 18% 18% 14% 7% 6% 6% 9% 5% 6% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 13 times or more 3-12 times Once or twice Never Source: National Citizen Survey™ The parks and landscape maintenance costs have increased by 31% since FY 2008. According to the Department, this is due to increasing contract costs and staff benefits costs. Approximately 22% ($821,666) of the parks and landscape maintenance was contracted out in FY 2013. The division maintains approximately 454 acres of developed parks and land. 74,630 72,170 69,791 67,381 65,653 60,153 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Golf Course Revenue Number of rounds of golf Nu m b e r o f r o u n d s o f g o l f 32 Golf Course Revenue and Number of Rounds of Golf Open Space, Parks, and Golf Source: Community Services Department Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Re v e n u e ( i n m i l l i o n s ) 19% decrease Did you know? The City plans to begin the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project in April 2014. The project was initially triggered by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority's (JPA) project to realign the San Francisquito Creek channel for the purpose of increased flood protection within Palo Alto and neighboring communities. The goals of the project are to: •Reconfigure the Golf Course to accommodate the necessary flood control work of the JPA and to allow for future recreation fields for the City. •Reinforce a sense of place to the completed Golf Course facility. •Celebrate the Baylands environment. •Restore the golf asset as a “Point of Pride” to the community. •Conserve resources by transforming the fully turfed course to one with more naturalized areas that are in harmony with the Baylands area. •Promote Palo Alto by establishing a “must play” golf experience in the region. Golf Course Expenditures and Net Revenue/(Cost) Source: Community Services Department ($0.02) ($0.33) $0.08 $0.17 $0.27 ($0.02) -$1.0 $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Debt service Operating Expenditures Net revenue/(cost) Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) According to the Department, the decrease in the number of rounds of golf mirrors a general decline in golf play throughout the United States in the past several years. A pending Reconfiguration Project has also contributed to the decrease by impacting golf course tournament bookings. Golf Course Renovation design concept “Plan G” 33 Enrollment in Major Recreation Classes Recreation Services 4,712 3,750 3,726 3,613 3,532 2,776 1,396 1,393 1,309 1,310 1,455 1,479 1,129 1,075 972 889 886 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Recreation Middle school sports Dance According to the Department, enrollment in recreation classes decreased due to the temporary closure of the Mitchell Park Community Center for construction of a new building, increased fees, and an increased supply of recreation services by other organizations. The increase in middle school sports is due to increasing parent and student demand for afterschool sports. Recreation Services Spending $91 $88 $79 $77 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $5,841 $5,729 $5,1971 $5,130 51.3 41.6 39.4 39.0 Expenditures (in thousands) FTEs Source: Community Services Department Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Achieve a high level of customer satisfaction for all programs and services offered by the department Increase public awareness of - and participation in - recreational services Ensure programs are responsive to a broad range of needs within the community Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Citizen Survey: Ratings for Recreation Services (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Recreation centers/facilities Recreation programs/classes Source: National Citizen Survey™ The Division oversees several facilities including the historic Lucie Stern Community Center, the soon to open Mitchell Park Community Center, Cubberley Community Center, and Rinconada Pool. 41% decrease Expenditures per capita Footnote 1 Due to the reorganization in FY 2012, Golf expenditures were transferred from the former Recreation and Golf Division to the former Open Space and Parks Division, and the new Recreation Services Division assumed the operation of the Cubberley Community Center. 34 Cubberley Rental Revenue and Hours Rented Source: Community Services Department Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s 32 35 35 31 29 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Hourly rental revenue Hours rented Re v e n u e ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) The Department attributes the decrease to a conversion of the center’s auditorium in FY 2010 to house the temporary Mitchell Park Library. The new library is anticipated to open in 2014. Rental fees were increased in FY 2013, resulting in an 8% increase in revenue compared to FY 2012. 10% decrease Cubberley Lease Revenue Classrooms Theatre Ho u r s ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) $1,492 $1,414 $1,584 $1,599 $1,611 $1,602 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 (i n t h o u s a n d s ) Source: Community Services Department Did You Know? Located in south Palo Alto, the Cubberley Community Center has been operated by the City of Palo Alto since 1990. Space is available for rent by the hour for community meetings, seminars, social events, dances, theatre performances, music rehearsals and athletic events. Outdoor spaces at Cubberley include six tennis courts, two soccer fields, four softball fields, and one artificial turf field. Indoor spaces for rent include six classrooms, one lecture room, three activity rooms, two music rehearsal rooms, two dance studios, and three gymnasiums. The center also leases former classroom space to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas of Education, Health, Child Care, Animal Rescue, Arts, Dance and Music instruction. Recreation Services 35 Footnotes 1 The FY 2008 numbers for these divisions were not available in the City’s Operating Budget documents due to the FY 2008 reorganization. The Department attributes the FY 2012 increase in Open Space, Parks, and Golf to 1) the reorganization, transferring Golf from the Recreation and Golf Division to this new division, and 2) to the increase in water rates charged to the division. 2 The amount reflects the total operating expenditures for the Department including the expenditures of all operating divisions prior to the FY 2008 reorganization. 3 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. 4 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. The Department attributes the decrease in enrollment to increased competition from private camp providers and reduced household spending on adult classes. Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Administration and Human Services1 Arts and Sciences Open Space, Parks, and Golf1 Recreation Services1 TOTAL CSD expenditures per capita Total Revenues3 (in millions) Total Temporary Temporary as a Percent of Total Per 1,000 residents FY 08 - $4.1 - - $21.22 $342 $7.4 146.7 49.4 34% 2.4 FY 09 $3.9 $4.6 $6.5 $6.3 $21.2 $333 $7.1 145.9 49.4 34% 2.3 FY 10 $4.2 $4.6 $5.8 $5.8 $20.5 $319 $7.3 146.4 52.1 36% 2.3 FY 11 $4.2 $4.5 $5.7 $5.7 $20.1 $310 $7.2 123.8 49.3 40% 1.9 FY 12 $2.9 $4.6 $8.2 $5.2 $20.9 $319 $6.8 122.7 48.7 40% 1.9 FY 13 $3.1 $4.5 $8.7 $5.1 $21.6 $325 $7.3 125.5 51.8 41% 1.9 Change from: Last year +8% -1% +6% -1% +3% +2% +7% +2% +6% +1% +1% FY 08 - +10% - - +1% -5% -2% -14% +5% +7% -20% DEPARTMENTWIDE CLASSES DEPARTMENTWIDE Total number of classes/camps offered4 Total enrollment4 Camp sessions Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool Total Camps Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre-school Total Percent of Class Registrations online Percent of class registrants who are non- residents FY 08 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43% 15% FY 09 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45% 13% FY 10 162 308 325 153 948 5,974 4,373 4,190 2,829 17,366 55% 14% FY 11 163 290 283 142 878 5,730 4,052 3,618 2,435 15,835 52% 14% FY 12 155 279 203 148 785 5,259 4,136 2,688 2,667 14,750 51% 12% FY 13 152 235 258 139 784 5,670 3,962 2,461 2,155 14,248 54% 12% Change from: Last year -2% -16% +27% -6% 0% +8% -4% -8% -19% -3% +3% 0% FY 08 +1% -7% -21% -3% -10% -4% -18% -51% -35% -25% +11% -3% 36 Footnotes 1 According to the Department, one of the programs started offering classes on a drop-in basis and registration is no longer necessary. The number of enrollment for this program was derived by dividing the number of drop-in participants by eight, which is a typical number of classes offered per registration. 2 According to the Department, the increase is due to a shift in emphasis from performance to education to promote a philosophy of life-long skills. 3 The Art Center closed to the public for renovation from May 2011 through October 2012, which accounts for some of the decreases in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Some of the increases in FY 2012 are due to “On the Road” installations and outreach programs in the community. 4 Exhibition visitors include estimated On the Road art installation visitors. 5 All of the concerts are part of the Community Theatre program. 6 The Department attributes the increase to additional school contracts funded by Partners In Education (PIE) and Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 7 The Department attributes the increase in classes and enrollment to school programs provided in the Baylands Nature Center and Foothills Park. The Junior Museum and Zoo began operation of these programs four years ago, and has since increased marketing to boost the number of schools utilizing this service. Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION – PERFORMING ARTS Art Center3 Junior Museum & Zoo Science Interpretation Citizen Survey Exhibition visitors4 Concerts5 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children) Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! and Outreach Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps Estimated number of children participating in school outreach programs Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach classes for school-age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes Percent rating services to youth ”good” or “excellent” FY 08 17,198 42 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 2,089 2,722 85 2,689 73% FY 09 15,830 41 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 2,054 3,300 178 2,615 75% FY 10 17,244 41 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 2,433 6,971 208 3,978 70% FY 11 13,471 28 51,373 2,334 $164,624 6,773 1,889 6,614 156 3,857 78% FY 12 29,717 0 62,055 905 $193,000 14,238 2,575 9,701 131 3,970 75% FY 13 9,865 0 72,148 2,222 $206,998 10,472 2,363 10,689 136 3,575 75% Change from: Last year -67% 0% +16% +146% +7% -26% -8% +10% +4% -10% 0% FY 08 -43% -100% +4% -43% -48% +52% +13% +293%6 +60%7 +33%7 +2% Community Theatre Children's Theatre Number of performances Attendance at performances Enrollment in music & dance classes Attendance at performances Participants in performances & programs Enrollment in theatre classes, camps, and workshop FY 08 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407 FY 09 159 46,609 964 14,786 534 334 FY 10 174 44,221 980 24,983 555 1,436 FY 11 175 44,014 847 27,345 1,334 1,475 FY 12 175 45,635 941 27,907 1,087 1,987 FY 13 184 45,966 1,1311 25,675 1,220 1,824 Change from: Last year +5% +1% +20% -8% +12% -8% FY 08 +11% +1% +15% +30% +10% +348%2 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION - MUSEUMS 37 Footnotes 1 Includes collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups. Volunteer hours include the Baylands Nature Preserve through Save the Bay (non-profit partner) activities and the community service hours by court-referred volunteers. 2 The marked increase in the number of native plants in restoration projects is due to the completion of a new greenhouse at the Baylands that has significantly boosted plant propagation. 3 PAUSD partially reimburses the City for maintenance costs for these school district sites. 4 According to the Department, this measure was not accurately tracked during FY 2013. 5 The Department reports it has experienced increased volunteerism from service organizations and school students. Volunteer projects have ranged from weed removal to playground repair, landscape renovation, and installation of shade structures. Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Citizen Survey Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/ resource management projects1 Number of native plants in restoration projects Percent rating quality of overall natural environment “good” or “excellent” Percent rating preservation of natural areas such as open space “good” or “excellent” Percent rating availability of paths or walking trails “good” or “excellent” FY 08 135,001 13,572 13,893 85% 78% 74% FY 09 135,110 16,169 11,934 84% 82% 75% FY 10 149,298 16,655 11,303 84% 78% 75% FY 11 181,911 16,235 27,655 84% 76% 75% FY 12 171,413 16,142 23,737 88% 81% 77% FY 13 205,507 11,157 46,933 83% 79% 71% Change from: Last year +20% -31% +98%2 -5% -2% -6% FY 08 +52% -18% +238%2 -2% +1% -3% OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – OPEN SPACE Maintenance Expenditures Citizen Survey Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites3 (in millions) TOTAL (in millions) Total maintenance cost per acre Total hours of athletic field usage Number of permits issued for special events Volunteer hours for neighborhood parks Number of participants in community gardening program Percent rating City parks as “good” or “excellent” Percent rating their neighborhood park “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $4.2 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 89% 86% FY 09 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $4.4 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 92% 87% FY 10 $3.0 $0.5 $0.6 $4.1 $15,413 41,705 12 260 238 90% 88% FY 11 $3.2 $0.4 $0.5 $4.1 $15,286 42,687 25 927 260 94% 89% FY 12 $3.5 $0.4 $0.6 $4.5 $16,425 44,226 27 1,120 292 91% 92% FY 13 $3.8 $0.4 $0.6 $4.8 $17,563 N/A4 47 637 292 93% 87% Change from: Last year +8% +2% +5% +7% +7% - +74% -43% 0% +2% -5% FY 08 +31% -30% -15% +15% +10% - +114% +254%5 +25% +4% +1% OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 38 Footnotes 1 The Department attributes the net cost to the decrease in the number of rounds of golf resulting from a general decline in golf play throughout the United States in the past several years and a pending Reconfiguration Project. 2 These enrollment figures are also included in the total stated in the Departmentwide Classes table. 3 The Department attributes the decreases to the temporary closure of the Mitchell Park Community Center for construction of a new building, increased fees, and an increased supply of recreation services by other organizations. Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Citizen Survey Number of rounds of golf Golf Course Revenue (in millions) Golf Course Operating Expenditures (in millions) Golf course debt Service (in millions) Net revenue/ (cost) FY 08 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 ($23,487) FY 09 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.7 ($326,010) FY 10 69,791 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $76,146 FY 11 67,381 $2.8 $2.0 $0.7 $166,017 FY 12 65,653 $2.7 $1.9 $0.6 $271,503 FY 13 60,153 $2.5 $2.1 $0.4 ($18,179)1 Change from: Last year -8% -7% +12% -23% -107%1 FY 08 -19% -21% -4% -39% +23% OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – GOLF Enrollment in Recreational Classes2 Citizen Survey Dance Recreation Aquatics Middle school sports Therapeutics Private tennis lessons TOTAL Enrollment in Recreational Summer Camps1 Percent rating recreation centers/facilities good or excellent Percent rating recreation programs/classes good or excellent FY 08 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 7,968 5,883 77% 87% FY 09 1,075 3,750 266 1,393 153 444 7,081 6,010 80% 85% FY 10 972 3,726 259 1,309 180 460 6,906 5,974 81% 82% FY 11 889 3,613 228 1,310 178 362 6,580 5,730 75% 81% FY 12 886 3,532 196 1,455 135 240 6,444 5,259 85% 87% FY 13 1,000 2,776 167 1,479 167 339 5,928 5,670 80% 87% Change from: Last year +13% -21%3 -15% +2% +24% +41% -8% +8% -5% 0% FY 08 -11% -41%3 -8% +6% -18% -2% -26% -4% +3% 0% RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION – RECREATION 39 Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s Cubberley Community Center Hours rented Hourly rental revenue (in millions) Number of lease-holders1 Lease revenue (in millions) FY 08 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 FY 09 34,874 $1.0 37 $1.4 FY 10 35,268 $0.9 41 $1.6 FY 11 30,878 $0.9 48 $1.6 FY 12 29,282 $0.8 33 $1.6 FY 13 29,207 $0.9 33 $1.6 Change from: Last year 0% +8% 0% -1% FY 08 -10% +1% -15% +7% RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION – CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER Footnote 1 The Department reports that the maximum number of lease-holders is 33 and that applicable records could not be located to determine the methodology used to report the number prior to FY 2012. 40 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s This Page Intentionally Left Blank Fire Suppression maintains a state of readiness to effectively respond to emergency and non-emergency calls. It provides a means for a safer Palo Alto through community outreach, public education and prevention. 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 55% What are the sources of Fire Department funding? (Total = $27.3 million) Stanford Service Contract (26%) Paramedic Services Fee (10%) Plan Checking Fee (5%) Hazardous Materials Permits (2%) Other External Revenues (2%) Other General Fund (55%) 83% 7% 6% 3% 1% How are Fire Department dollars used? (Total = $27.3 million) Emergency Response (83%) Administration (7%) Environmental and Fire Safety (6%) Training and Personnel Management (3%) Records and Information (1%) Chapter 3: Fire Department Mission: The City of Palo Alto Fire Department serves and safeguards the community from the impacts of fires, medical emergencies, environmental emergencies, and natural disasters by providing the highest level of service through action, innovation and investing in education, training and prevention. 41 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provides in an emergency setting, rapid assessment, treatment and transport of patients to definitive care in a safe and efficient manner. Fire Prevention Bureau improves the quality of life for the Palo Alto community through risk assessment, code enforcement, fire investigation, public education and hazardous materials management. Employee Fire/EMS Certification Training maintains, through training, safe, efficient, and effective practices when responding to emergencies. It ensures personnel are familiar with and able to utilize the most up-to-date and proven techniques in the field. Training specific to required Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and/or Paramedic re- certification is also incorporated. Ch a p t e r 3 Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 Berkeley Redwood City PALO ALTO San Mateo Milpitas Fremont Comparison of Fire and EMS Net Expenditures Per Capita in FY 20121,2 128.1 127.7 126.5 125.1 125.3 120.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) 42 Source: California State Controller’s Office, United States Census Bureau Source: City of Palo Alto Operating Budget documents Footnotes 1Expenditures may not reconcile to total spending due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Cities may categorize their expenditures in different ways. 2Palo Alto population includes the expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford); however, it does not account for the daytime population increase of about 70 percent in the area. Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 86.0% 10.9% 1.2% 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% Salaries & Benefits (86.0%) Allocated Charges (10.9%) Supplies & Materials (1.2%) Contract Services (1.1%) Facilities & Equipment (0.5%) General Expense (0.4%) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Did You Know? The Department purchased 18 state‐of‐the‐art cardiac monitors and defibrillators capable of carbon monoxide monitoring for possible carbon monoxide patients and temperature monitoring for hypothermia treatment in cardiac arrest situations. $316 FY 08 $303 FY 09 $355 FY 10 $364 FY 12 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data $340 FY 13 FY 11 $365 Fire Department Per Capita Spending2 43 Ch a p t e r 3 Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t DEPARTMENT GOALS Arrive at the scene of emergencies safely and in a timely manner within the department’s targeted response times. Ensure reasonable life safety conditions through inspection programs. Develop, maintain, and sustain a citywide, comprehensive, all hazard, risk-based emergency management program that engages the whole community. Enhance training and maintain all certifications required by governing agencies. Internalize commitment to excellence in public service by continuously evaluating the assistance provided, identifying areas needing improvement and implementing mitigation methods. Prevent fires and the damaging impact of fires and emergencies through planning, coordination, and education of adults and children. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Fire Hazardous Condition Service Calls False Alarms Other Medical/Rescue Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Departmentwide In FY 2013, the Fire Department handled 7,904 calls for service, averaging 22 calls per day. Total calls for service increased by 2% from FY 2008. Calls for Service The Palo Alto Fire Department reports it had 27 fire response vehicles including 11 front line apparatus in FY 2013. Front line apparatus include: •Six 2009 Pierce Arrow XT fire engines (shown on the right), one for each fire station across the City and Stanford. •A ladder truck for large fires, vehicle accidents, and technical rescues, which is housed at Fire Station 6. •Two regularly staffed Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances housed at Stations 1 and 2. A third cross- staffed ALS ambulance is housed at Station 2. Hazardous materials personnel and equipment are strategically stationed at Stations 2 and 4. The Department has a total of six fire stations which are staffed full-time. To provide coverage in the sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station in the foothills is operated during summer months when fire danger is high. The chart below shows the number of residents served per fire station is lower than many other local jurisdictions. However, the total daytime population of Palo Alto and Stanford increases from about 80,000 to over 134,000, which results in a daytime population served per fire station of over 22,000. Ch a p t e r 3 Citizen Survey: Service Ratings (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) 44 Source: Cities, California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Footnotes 1 For Palo Alto, population includes residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). 2 For Palo Alto, calculation is based on six fire stations, and does not include Station 8 (Foothills Park, operated during the summer months when fire danger is high). Departmentwide 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Fire prevention and education Ambulance/emergency medical services Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Santa Clara PALO ALTO Mountain View Redwood City San Mateo Berkeley Milpitas Fremont Sunnyvale San Jose Resident Population Served Per Fire Station in FY 20131,2 Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Fire Services “Good” or “Excellent” Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Target (FY 13): 90% Percent of Responses to Emergencies Within 8 or 12 Minutes1,2 Emergency Response Average Response Times: Fire and Medical/Rescue Calls1 45 Footnotes 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 Ambulance response to paramedic calls includes non-City ambulance responses. Source: Fire Department Source: Fire Department Ch a p t e r 3 KEY OBJECTIVES Fire response time will be within 8 minutes 90% of the time Basic Life Support (BLS) medical response times will be within 8 minutes 90% of the time. Advanced Life Support (ALS) response times will be within 12 minutes 90% of the time. Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Average response time for fire calls Average response time for medical/rescue calls FY 13 Target: 6 minutes Mi n u t e s 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes FY 13 Target: 90% Source: Fire Department 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Medical/Rescue incidents Fire Incidents Number of Fire and Medical/Rescue Incidents In FY 2013, the Fire Department had on average 27 staff on duty. Department staff included 54 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 40 certified paramedics. Three FTE from the Department’s Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program provided inter-facility transports and offered a downgrade option to the 911 system. In FY 2013, the Fire Department met its average response time target of 6 minutes for medical/rescue calls but not fire calls. Environmental Safety Management 46 Footnotes 1 Hazardous materials incidents, also known as CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives), involve flammable gas or liquid, chemical release or spill, or chemical release reaction or toxic condition. 2 Number of plan reviews does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. Source: Fire Department Ch a p t e r 3 KEY OBJECTIVES Perform periodic inspections of all facilities within department’s designated target cycle time. Identify and direct abatement of conditions or operating procedures which could cause an increase in probability or severity of a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) emergency. Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t Source: Fire Department 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Fire incidents Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews The number of fire incidents decreased by 19% from last year and by 22% from FY 2008. Fire Incidents, Fire Inspections, and Plan Reviews2 80% 81% 83% 84% 81% 83% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) 45 40 26 66 82 79 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ha z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s i n c i d e n t s Hazardous Materials Incidents1 Source: Fire Department The Fire Department reports that it inspected 133 of 455 (29%) facilities permitted for hazardous materials in FY 2013. Citizen Survey: Percent of Residents Feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” Safe From Environmental Hazards 76% increase In FY 2013, Palo Alto ranked in the 68th percentile for citizen perception of safety from environmental hazards, including toxic waste. The Department attributes the increases in the number of fire inspections and plan reviews to increased development activity, enhanced collaboration with other field inspectors in the Development Center, and implementation of a more efficient inspection request system. Training and Personnel 47 Source: Fire Department Ch a p t e r 3 KEY OBJECTIVES Maintain the required minimum of 20 hours/month per employee of fire related training. Maintain, as mandated, records of training related to EMS and EMT/Paramedic certification (24 hours per year). Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t 115 126 95 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Total Number of Fire Safety Presentations and Events, Including Demonstrations and Fire Station Tours 43 20 11 14 16 18 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of residential structure fires Percent rating fire prevention and education "good" or "excellent" Nu m b e r o f r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e f i r e s Pe r c e n t r a t i n g f i r e p r e v e n t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n “g o o d ” o r “ e x c e l l e n t ” In FY 2013, Palo Alto ranked in the 59th percentile for fire prevention and education. Source: Fire Department, National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Average Training Hours Per Firefighter Per Month Comparison of Citizen Ratings for Fire Prevention and Education and the Number of Residential Fires FY 13 Target: 20 hrs. per employee Did You Know? The Fire Department reports it is increasing efforts to identify and quantify community risks and is designing risk reduction programs to address the highest risks. The Department’s “Community Risk Reduction” programs include bike safety classes offered in collaboration with the Planning and Community Environment Department, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), first aid, firefighting and light search and rescue training provided to assist the Office of Emergency Services. During FY 2013, the Department reports it provided: •95 fire safety presentations and events including demonstrations and fire station tours to over 7,000 participants. •An average of 315 training hours per firefighter. •268 hours of training to other City departments (compared to 120 hours in FY 2012). Source: Fire Department Data not available Operating Expenditures (millions) Citizen Survey Administration Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information TOTAL Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served1 Revenue (in millions) Percent rating fire services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) Percent rating fire prevention and education “good” or “excellent” (Target: 85%) FY 08 $1.6 $16.7 $2.4 $2.3 $1.0 $24.0 75,982 $316 $9.7 96% 87% FY 09 $0.4 $17.4 $2.3 $2.3 $1.0 $23.4 77,305 $303 $11.0 95% 80% FY 10 $2.3 $19.3 $2.5 $2.6 $1.0 $27.7 78,161 $355 $10.6 93% 79% FY 11 $1.6 $20.8 $2.6 $2.7 $1.0 $28.7 78,662 $365 $12.0 92% 76% FY 12 $1.72 $20.92 $2.42 $2.82 $1.02 $28.82 79,252 $3642 $13.72 96% 80% FY 13 $1.9 $22.5 $1.7 $0.8 $0.3 $27.3 80,177 $340 $12.43 93% 82% Change from: Last year +10% +8% -28% -70% -70% -5% +1% -6% -10%3 -3% +2% FY 08 +16% +35% -30% -63% -69% +14% +6% +8% +27% -3% -5% 48 Ch a p t e r 3 Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t Footnotes 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Prior year population revised per California Department of Finance estimates and updated information from the United States Census Bureau. 2 Starting in FY 2012, Office of Emergency Services (OES) expenditures and FTEs were excluded from Fire Department figures. OES was established as a separate department in FY 2012 and is presented in Chapter 6. 3 The Department attributes the decrease in FY 2013 to lower contract revenues from Stanford University. 4 “Other” calls include alarm testing, station tours, good intent calls, training incidents, and cancelled calls. Good intent calls are those where a person genuinely believes there is an actual emergency, however, an emergency does not exist. 5 For Palo Alto, calculation is based on six fire stations, and does not include Station 8 (Foothills Park, operated during the summer months when fire danger is high). Calls for service Staffing Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other4 TOTAL Average number of calls per day Total authorized staffing (FTE) Staffing per 1,000 residents served1 Average training hours per firefighter Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Resident population served per fire station1,5 FY 08 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 128.1 1.69 246 18% 12,664 FY 09 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 127.7 1.65 223 16% 12,884 FY 10 182 4,432 1,013 444 151 1,246 7,468 20 126.5 1.62 213 26% 13,027 FY 11 165 4,521 1,005 406 182 1,276 7,555 21 125.1 1.59 287 21% 13,110 FY 12 186 4,584 1,095 466 216 1,249 7,796 21 125.32 1.582 313 37%2 13,209 FY 13 150 4,712 1,091 440 194 1,317 7,904 22 120.3 1.50 315 19% 13,363 Change from: Last year -19% +3% 0% -6% -10% +5% +1% +1% -4% -5% +1% -18% +1% FY 08 -22% +4% -3% +10% +15% +2% +2% +2% -6% -11% +28% +1% +6% STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE DEPARTMENTWIDE Number of fire incidents Average response time for fire calls1 (Target: 6:00 minutes) Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes1 (Target: 90%) Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin2 (Target: 90%) Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles3 Fire safety presentations, including demonstrations and fire station tours4 <REVISED> FY 08 192 6:48 minutes 79% 79% 43 0 25 - FY 09 239 6:39 minutes 78% 63% 20 0 25 - FY 10 182 7:05 minutes 90% 56% 11 0 29 - FY 11 165 6:23 minutes 83% 38% 14 0 30 115 FY 12 186 7:00 minutes 81% 50% 16 0 29 126 FY 13 150 6:31 minutes 82% 44% 18 0 28 95 Change from: Last year -19% -7% +1% -6% +13% 0% -3% -25% FY 08 -22% -4% +3% -35% -58% 0% +12% - 49 Ch a p t e r 3 Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t Footnotes 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 The Fire Department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 3 This includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazardous materials, and mutual aid vehicles. 4 This measure was restated to exclude the presentations and training sessions provided by the Office of Emergency Services, and bike safety presentations. 5 Includes non-City ambulance responses. 6 The Department reported the number of ambulance transports from its ADPI Billing System. In prior years, the information provided was from the Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch system. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SUPPRESSION AND FIRE SAFETY Citizen Survey Medical/rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls1 (Target: 6:00) First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes1 (Target: 90%) Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes1,5 (Target: 90%) Number of Ambulance transports Ambulance Revenue (in millions) Percent rating ambulance/emergency medical services “good” or “excellent” FY 08 4,552 5:24 minutes 93% 99% 3,236 $2.0 95% FY 09 4,509 5:37 minutes 91% 99% 3,331 $2.1 91% FY 10 4,432 5:29 minutes 93% 99% 2,991 $2.2 94% FY 11 4,521 5:35 minutes 91% 99% 3,0056 $2.3 93% FY 12 4,584 5:36 minutes 91% 99% 3,2206 $2.8 96% FY 13 4,712 5:35 minutes 91% 99% 3,5236 $3.0 93% Change from: Last year +3% 0% 0% 0% +9% +8% -3% FY 08 +4% +3% -2% 0% +9% +48% -2% 50 Ch a p t e r 3 Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND INSPECTIONS Footnotes 1 Hazardous materials incidents, also known as CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives), involve flammable gas or liquid, chemical release or spill, or chemical release reaction or toxic condition. 2 In FY 2010, the method for calculating the number of inspections was changed to avoid over counting. Prior year numbers were not calculated in this manner, so the reported numbers for those years are higher than would be indicated using the revised method. The Department attributes the FY 2012 decrease to temporary staffing shortages. 3 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 4 The Department attributes this change to an increase in overall development activity. In addition, the Fire Prevention Bureau was relocated to the Development Center, enhancing collaboration with the Planning and Community Environment Department’s building inspectors. The Bureau also implemented a new inspection request system, allowing inspectors to acknowledge, schedule, and complete inspections more efficiently. Hazardous Materials Citizen Survey Number of hazardous materials incidents1 Number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials Number of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected2 (Target: 150) Percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected2 (Target: 60%) Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews3 (Target: 850) Percent of residents feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards FY 08 45 503 406 81% 1,277 906 80% FY 09 40 509 286 56% 1,028 841 81% FY 10 26 510 126 25% 1,526 851 83% FY 11 66 484 237 49% 1,807 1,169 84% FY 12 82 485 40 8% 1,654 1,336 81% FY 13 79 455 133 29% 2,069 1,396 83% Change from: Last year -4% -6% +233% +21% +25% +4% +2% FY 08 +76% -10% -67% -52% +62%4 +54%4 +3% 56% 23% 5% 5% 4% 7% What are the sources of IT funding? (Total = $17.5 million) General Fund (56%) Utilities Admin - Ops (23%) Public Works - Refuse Fund (5%) Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Fund (5%) Other (Electric, Gas, Water) Utilities Funds (4%) Other Funds and Sources (7%) 22% 19% 14% 11% 10% 24% How are IT dollars used? (Total = $17.5 million) IT Operations (22%) Technology Capital Improvement Program (19%) Office of the CIO (14%) Enterprise Systems (11%) IT Project Services (10%) Technology Fund Reserve (24%) Chapter 4: Information Technology 51 The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) provides strategic leadership and advisory services to the IT Department and the City. The IT Governance and Planning division's primary focus is to ensure the IT Department is working on the right things at the right time for the right reasons. The IT Project Services division coordinates all approved IT projects and provides project management services. The Information Technology (IT) Operations division maintains and supports all deployed back office, front office and citizen facing technologies including the process of retiring products and services. The team also ratifies standards working alongside other IT Department divisions and City departments. The Enterprise Systems division is responsible for maintaining a core set of large, shared enterprise-wide systems. Mission: To provide innovative technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the community. The Information Security Services division is responsible for developing and implementing a citywide information security program that includes the preservation of the availability, integrity, and confidentiality of City information resources. The IT Department was established in 2012, headed by a Chief Information Officer. Source: IT Department Ch a p t e r 4 In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Requests For Help Desk Services in FY 2013 Duration (days) to Remediate Security Incidents in FY 2013 IT Expenditures and City Staff Ratings The IT Department reports it had 30 Full-time positions, 4.86 Hourly positions, and funded an additional 1.46 FTEs for other departments in FY 2013. 52 Source: Information Technology Department Source: Information Technology Department Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK 40.8% 24.7% 18.6% 7.4% 4.5% 3.5% 0.4% 0.2% Salaries & Benefits (40.8%) Capital Improvement Program (24.7%) Contract Services (18.6%) Allocated Charges (7.4%) Operating Transfers Out (4.5%) General Expense (3.5%) Supplies & Materials (0.4%) Rents & Leases (0.2%) Note: Facilities & Equipment Purchases was reported as a negative value: ($286,000) out of $13.3 million in total expenditures. We excluded it from this chart. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: Information Technology Department $4,548 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Expenditures by Category Percent of surveyed City staff rating IT services as “excellent” in FY 2013 IT expenditures per workstation in FY 2013 0-1 days 63 incidents 50% 2-7 days 43 incidents 34% 8-14 days 8 incidents 6% 31-90 days 5 incidents 4% 15-30 days 4 incidents 3% > 90 days 3 incidents 3% 0-1 days (50%) 2-7 days (34%) 8-14 days (6%) 31-90 days (4%) 15-30 days (3%) > 90 days (3%) 3,041 requests 31% 2,166 requests 23% 490 requests 5% 2,457 requests 25% 1,580 requests 16% Resolved within 15 minutes (31%) Resolved within 4 hours (23%) Resolved within 8 hours (5%) Resolved within 5 days (25%) Over 5 days to resolve (16%) Ch a p t e r 4 In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Operating expenditures (in millions)1 IT Project Services IT Operations Enterprise Systems Office of the CIO Technology Capital Improvement Program1 TOTAL1 Revenue (in millions) Total authorized FTE Number of Workstations IT Expenditures Per Workstation3 FY 08 - - - - - - - - 1,000 - FY 09 - - - - - - - - 1,005 - FY 10 - - - - - - - - 1,005 - FY 11 - - - - - - - - 1,020 - FY 12 $2.5 $3.0 $1.8 $1.5 $0.8 $9.6 $13.4 34.2 1,100 $4,658 FY 13 $1.7 $3.8 $1.9 $2.5 $3.4 $13.3 $17.5 36.3 1,118 $4,548 Change from: Last year -32% +28% +4% +67% +328%2 +38% +30% +6% +2% -2% FY 08 - - - - - - - - +12% - Percent of requests for help desk services resolved:4 City Staff Survey IT Department Number of requests for help desk services Within 15 minutes <REVISED> Within 4 hours <REVISED> Within 8 hours <REVISED> Within 5 days <REVISED> Over 5 days <REVISED> Percent rating IT services as “excellent” Percent of security incidents remediated within 1 day <NEW> FY 08 - - - - - - - - FY 09 - - - - - - - - FY 10 - - - - - - - - FY 11 - - - - - - - - FY 12 9,460 33% 26% 5% 24% 12% 95% - FY 13 9,734 31% 22% 5% 25% 16% 87% 50% Change from: Last year +3% -2% -4% 0% +1% +4% -8% - FY 08 - - - - - - - - Footnotes: 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 The IT Department attributes the increase in FY 2013 to an increased number of projects, including the upgrade of the City’s telephone system and the replacement of desktop computers with laptops. 3 Includes all technology expenditures except Capital Improvement Program and Project Services. 4 The IT Department revised the methodology for calculating these measures. Percentages reported in each category do not include help desk service requests resolved in any other category. DEPARTMENTWIDE 53 54 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s This Page Intentionally Left Blank 55 2% 1% 97% Fines, Forfeitures, & Penalities (2%) Other External Revenues (1%) Other General Fund Revenues (97%) 14% 60% 26% Administration (14%) Public Services (60%) Collections and Technical Services (26%) Chapter 5: Library Department Mission: To enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information, and enjoyment How are Library dollars used? (Total = $6.9 million) What are the sources of Library funding? (Total = $6.9 million) Collections: Provides a diverse selection of print and non-print materials, as well as digital resources to meet the educational, informational, and recreational needs of its clientele, reflecting the variety of languages, cultures, and interests of our community, inspiring innovation, creativity, and community engagement. Buildings: By funding major facility improvements to three libraries through a dedicated library bond, as well as two additional renovation projects already completed, by 2014 -- when all libraries will be opened, Palo Alto will have modern libraries offering comfortable, inviting, and flexible spaces for everyone in our community to gather and learn. Support and Administration: Provides information, training, and support for City employees, as well as the public, and ensures that all aspects of library services and policies are delivered with the highest degree of public stewardship in mind. Technology: Provides opportunities for the public to access a variety of technologies, both inside and outside the library facilities, including hardware devices, online databases and electronic books, free WiFi, mobile applications, and experimental partnerships. Programs: Offers a variety of programs free of charge to library users of all ages, interests, and abilities, to provide educational, self-help, recreational, technological, and multi-lingual outreach. When appropriate, partners with other civic, non-profit, business, and educational organizations to present these programs. 56 Footnote 1 Each jurisdiction offers different levels of service and may account for those services differently. 48.0 50.0 52.0 54.0 56.0 58.0 60.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ch a p t e r 5 Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t $126 $109 $103 $91 $65 $60 $54 $51 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Berkeley Palo Alto Burlingame Redwood City Menlo Park Mountain View Santa Clara Sunnyvale Comparison of Library Expenditures Per Capita in FY 20121 4% increase Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Library Per Capita Spending Source: California Library Statistics 2013 (reporting FY 2012) Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 75.0% 12.1% 9.3% 2.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.01% Salaries & Benefits (75.0%) Allocated Charges (12.1%) Supplies & Materials (9.3%) Contract Services (2.5%) General Expense (0.9%) Facilities & Equipment (0.1%) Rents & Leases (0.01%) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data The 4% increase in FTEs from FY 2008 is comprised of a 5% decrease in the number of regular FTEs and a 31% increase in the number of temporary/hourly FTEs. According to the Department, the number of temporary/hourly FTEs was increased to support library bond construction activities and library services in smaller facilities. $110 $98 $99 $100 FY 13 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 $108 FY 12 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data $104 57 Source: Library Department Departmentwide Ch a p t e r 5 Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t 36 40 46 48 56 0 20 40 60 Main College Terrace Children's Downtown Mitchell Park Branch Hours Open per Week DEPARTMENT GOALS Maintain a high rate of return on the City's investment in library materials and services Develop and provide library services and programs supporting the 41 Developmental Assets for Adolescents model Position the library as a community destination for informational and recreational needs 1,542 1,634 1,625 1,477 1,560 1,513 54 55 52 53 60 51 0 50 100 150 200 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ca r d h o l d e r s (i n t h o u s a n d s ) Ch e c k o u t s (i n t h o u s a n d s ) Number of Checkouts and Cardholders Checkouts Cardholders 3,138 3,529 3,880 4,507 4,784 9,256 10,858 11,142 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Sunnyvale (1) Mountain View (1) Santa Clara (2) Menlo Park (2) Burlingame (2) Redwood City (4) Berkeley (5) Palo Alto (5) Comparison of Total Hours Open Annually in FY 2012 (Number of libraries) Source: California Library Statistics 2013 (reporting FY 2012) •The Main Library closed in April 2013 for renovation. It is scheduled to reopen in late 2014. Temporary Main Library opened in the Art Center Auditorium in May 2013. •The Mitchell Park Library remained closed during FY 2013. The new library, originally scheduled to open in July 2012, is anticipated to open in 2014. A temporary Mitchell Park Library has been operating from the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium. •The Downtown and College Terrace libraries have extended hours to meet customers’ needs during the renovations. Source: Library Department The Department attributes a higher than average drop in cardholders in FY 2013 to their annual purge of library cardholders, which had not been done for two years. 58 Ch a p t e r 5 Departmentwide 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Citizen Survey: Service Ratings (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) Public library services Neighborhood branch libraries Citizen Survey: Variety of Library Materials 22% 26% 28% 31% 36% 33% 44% 47% 47% 41% 52% 48% 28% 23% 19% 19% 10% 14% 6% 4% 6% 8% 2% 5% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11* FY 12 FY 13 Excellent Good Fair Poor Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t Source: National Citizen Survey™ Source: National Citizen Survey™ Palo Alto City Library was named a 4-star library in the Library Journal’s Index of Public Library Service 2012. The Star designation is based on per capita: 1) Circulation, 2) Visits, 3) Program attendance, and 4) Public Internet terminal use. 1,073 1,102 1,231 1,616 1,719 1,740 2,169 2,914 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Berkeley Burlingame Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Santa Clara Sunnyvale Comparison of Population Served Per FTE in FY 2012 Source: California Library Statistics 2013 (reporting FY 2012) 23.9 23.8 21.7 21.3 19.8 19.2 18.9 15.3 0 10 20 30 Mountain View Palo Alto Redwood City Santa Clara Burlingame Menlo Park Sunnyvale Berkeley Comparison of Checkouts Per Capita in FY 2012 Source: California Library Statistics 2013 (reporting FY 2012) Footnote * The FY 2011 numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding. 59 Footnote * Estimate. According to the Department, this metric was not consistently monitored in FY 2012 due to staff transitions, including a new division head. Total Number of Items in Collection and Average Number of Checkouts per Item Collection and Technical Services 9.0 8.0 9.5 4.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12*FY 13 Average number of business days for new materials to be available for customer use Collection and Technical Services Spending $27 $25 $25 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $1,762 $1,622 $1,677 $1,798 11.2 10.7 10.7 9.9 Expenditures (in thousands) Authorized FTEs Source: Library Department Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: Library Department Ch a p t e r 5 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Apply technology and lean business efficiency principles to increase work quality and improve service delivery to customers High use of collections and facilities Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13To t a l # o f i t e m s ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) Total # of items Average # of checkouts per item Av e r a g e # o f c h e c k o u t s p e r i t e m Expenditures per capita Data not available Did You Know? The Department has launched new digital services, including Axis 360 ebooks, Zinio online magazines, and Author Alerts (e- mail notification of the customer’s favorite authors when a title is purchased by the library). The Department reduced the number of items in its collection during FY 2013 in preparation for upcoming purchases of new, updated materials and expansion of the existing collection in areas such as International Languages. The Department reduced the number of steps required to process new materials by combining some of the functions and providing cross training to its staff. This allowed 95% of new collection materials to be available within 48 to 72 hours after their arrival at the Library. $27 Did You Know? With the help of volunteers, the Department has started offering new programs including: •The IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program provides free tax assistance services for low- income seniors. •makeX provides “makerspace” where Palo Alto youth can go to create, tinker, and learn about art and technology through exploration of tools and equipment. makeX was created by teens for teens. 60 Footnote 1 According to the Department, the number includes 1.0 FTE that was frozen during FY 2012. Public Services In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Library's teen programs included increased Summer Reading activities and incentives, an author visit and the popular Books & Pizza program, which highlighted various genres. Public Services Spending $62 $60 $64 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $3,992 $3,886 $4,189 $4,131 42.3 40.5 42.61 48.2 Expenditures (in thousands) Authorized FTEs Source: Library Department Ch a p t e r 5 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Encourage adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 to read for pleasure three or more hours a week (Developmental Asset #25) High use of collections and facilities Increase annual participation in library programs and services, both in-library and virtual Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t 1,573 1,588 1,906 1,795 2,211 2,144 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of Participants in Teen Programs The number of programs offered was increased in response to one of Council’s FY 2013 top 5 priorities: community collaboration for youth health and well‐being. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Expenditures per capita 36% increase $62 •Creating Connections offers a series of programs for teens and adults 65 and over to come together for an introduction to popular technologies. 61 Footnotes 1 The Department attributes the increase to a change in methodology for allocating Information Technology charges in FY 2011. Allocated charges for the entire Department are reflected in the Administration division. Maintenance and replacement schedules were also updated. 2 According to the Department, the number includes 1.0 FTE that was frozen during FY 2012. 3 The Department attributes the fluctuation to a facility closure for renovation and re-opening, which is expected to be completed in 2014. Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Administration Collections and Technical Services Public Services TOTAL Library expenditures per capita Percent rating quality of library services “good” or “excellent” Percent rating quality of neighborhood branch libraries “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $0.5 $1.8 $4.5 $6.8 $110 75% 71% FY 09 $0.4 $1.8 $4.0 $6.2 $98 78% 75% FY 10 $0.6 $1.8 $4.0 $6.4 $99 82% 75% FY 11 $1.0 $1.6 $3.9 $6.5 $100 83% 81% FY 12 $1.2 $1.7 $4.2 $7.1 $108 88% 85% FY 13 $1.0 $1.8 $4.1 $6.9 $104 85% 80% Change from: Last year -20% +8% -1% -2% -4% -3% -5% FY 08 +106%1 -2% -9% +1% -5% +10% +9% Ch a p t e r 5 Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t STAFFING DEPARTMENTWIDE Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Regular Temporary/hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library staff FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually3 FTE per 1,000 hours open FY 08 43.8 12.7 56.5 1,101 5,988 11,281 5.0 FY 09 43.8 13.5 57.2 1,110 5,953 11,822 4.8 FY 10 42.3 12.8 55.0 1,169 5,564 9,904 5.6 FY 11 41.3 10.4 51.7 1,255 5,209 8,855 5.8 FY 12 41.32 12.5 53.72 1,218 6,552 11,142 4.8 FY 13 41.8 16.7 58.5 1,135 5,514 11,327 5.2 Change from: Last year +1% +34% +9% -7% -16% +2% +7% FY 08 -5% +31% +4% +3% -8% +0% +3% Number of items in collection Citizen Survey Book volumes Media items eBook & eMusic items TOTAL Number of Items in collection per capita Total number of titles in collection Total checkouts (Target: 1,500,000) Checkouts per capita Number of items on hold Average number of checkouts per item (Target: 4.93) Average number of business days for new materials to be available for customer use (Target: 4) Percent of first time checkouts completed on self - check machines Percent rating variety of library materials “good” or “excellent” FY 08 241,323 33,087 4,993 279,403 4.49 174,683 1,542,116 24.8 200,470 5.52 - 89% 66% FY 09 246,554 35,506 11,675 293,735 4.63 185,718 1,633,955 25.7 218,073 5.56 - 90% 73% FY 10 247,273 37,567 13,827 298,667 4.64 189,828 1,624,785 25.3 216,719 5.44 9.0 90% 75% FY 11 254,392 40,461 19,248 314,101 4.84 193,070 1,476,648 22.8 198,574 4.70 8.0 91% 72% FY 12 251,476 41,017 13,667 306,361 4.68 187,359 1,559,932 23.8 211,270 5.09 9.52 88% 88% FY 13 215,416 41,440 20,893 277,749 4.18 157,594 1,512,975 22.8 204,581 5.47 4.0 87% 81% Change from: Last year -14% +1% +53%1 -9% -11% -16% -3% -4% -3% +7% -58% -1% -7% FY 08 -11% +25% +318%1 -1% -7% -10% -2% -8% +2% -1% - -2% +15% 62 Footnotes 1 The Department attributes the increase to two new services introduced – Axis 360 ebooks and Zinio online magazines. 2 Estimate. According to the Department, this metric was not consistently monitored in FY 2012 due to staff transitions, including a new division head. 3 Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage lifelong learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. 4 The Department attributes this decline to change of the primary database provider and subsequent change of how the primary vendor defines session. 5 According to the Department, the number of programs offered was increased in response to one of Council’s 2013 top 5 priorities: community collaboration for youth health and well‐being. 6 The Department attributes the decrease to improvements in technology and greater access to the Internet with free WiFi, which is available at all the branches. More library customers are using their own laptop, tablet, and/or smartphone devices instead of library computers. Ch a p t e r 5 Li b r a r y D e p a r t m e n t PUBLIC SERVICES COLLECTION AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Citizen Survey Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders Library visits Meeting room reservations (Target: 1,600) Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Number of programs3 Number of participants in Teen Programs (Target: 1,978) Total program attendance Percent who used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the year FY 08 53,740 62% 881,520 - 48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 1,573 37,955 31% FY 09 54,878 62% 875,847 - 46,419 111,228 145,143 12,290 558 1,588 36,582 34% FY 10 51,969 60% 851,037 - 55,322 150,895 134,053 9,720 485 1,906 35,455 31% FY 11 53,246 64% 776,994 - 53,538 51,1114 111,076 5,279 425 1,795 24,092 30% FY 12 60,283 69% 843,981 846 43,269 42,179 112,910 4,829 598 2,211 30,916 28% FY 13 51,007 61% 827,171 1,223 43,476 31,041 70,195 3,662 745 2,144 40,405 34% Change from: Last year -15% -8% -2% +45% +0% -26% -38% -24% +25%5 -3% +31%5 +6% FY 08 -5% -1% -6% - -10%6 -37% -49%6 -70%6 +11% +36%5 +6% +3% 13% 4% 2% 81% What are the sources of Office of Emergency Services (OES) funding? ($0.8 million) General Fund Services Provided to Enterprise Funds (13%) Donations/Contributions (4%) Other Revenues from Other Agencies (2%) Other General Fund (81%) Chapter 6: Office of Emergency Services 63 OES operates the City’s Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC), which has greatly improved the City’s emergency response capabilities. Goal: To develop, maintain, and sustain a citywide, comprehensive, all hazard, risk-based emergency management program that engages the whole community. Mission: To prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Promote operational readiness (i.e., the City’s ability to handle a major critical incident or disaster). Lead a process to identify threats and hazards and to assess risks the City faces. Lead or coordinate the development and maintenance of policies and plans related to disasters, critical incidents, and City safety. Maintain awareness of threats to our area by coordinating with law enforcement and other agencies. Engage the whole community by developing structures to link non- governmental organizations, residents, and businesses to the incident command system (i.e., the systems and processes developed to mitigate incidents). Develop training and exercises. Seek funding and manage awarded grants pertaining to emergency management and homeland security. Coordinate development of new technologies for emergency management. Participate in regional planning efforts. Coordinate the development of emergency public information protocols. Ch a p t e r 6 Em e r g e n c y S e r v i c e s Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Emergency Preparedness “Good" or “Excellent" OES Per Capita Spending1,2 OES reports the following accomplishments in FY 2013: •Emergency Operations Center – completed remodel and technology retooling to provide state-of-the-art command and control center for all- hazards prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. •Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) – conducted multiple deployments to support Palo Alto, Stanford University, and other mutual aid partners. The deployments included Stanford football games, VIP (Very Important Person)/Dignitary visits, training, and community outreach and education events. •Quakeville - partnered with Emergency Services Volunteer (ESV) leadership to develop the 4th Annual Quakeville Community-Based Disaster Exercise where volunteers conducted hands-on drills in search and rescue, medical triage and treatment, and radio communications. •Community Emergency & Crime Preparedness - hosted or supported over 50 training sessions, exercises, planning meetings, and special events for ESVs, the general public, and Stanford University. These included Block Preparedness Coordinator Program training, special training for senior citizens, those with functional needs, and those who live/work in the foothills of Palo Alto and Stanford. •City Staff Training & Operational Readiness/Emergency Plans - trained staff in compliance with the legally required National Incident Management System (NIMS), workplace violence prevention, critical incident response, and other emergency operations. •Stanford Stadium Terrorism Exercise – collaborated with Stanford University Department of Public Safety on the design and execution of a large, multi-agency, multi-discipline full scale exercise with a scenario of a bombing in the Stanford Stadium during a football game. 64 Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK1 Expenditures by Category 49.9% 7.9% 13.2% 3.8% 22.4% 2.8% Salaries & Benefits (49.9%) Supplies & Materials (7.9%) Facilities & Equipment (13.2%) Indirect Charges (3.8%) Contract Services (22.4%) General Expense (2.8%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) Footnotes: 1 The City classified OES financial data under the Fire Department for budgeting purposes. 2 OES Per Capita Spending is based on the City’s financial records and the total population of Palo Alto and Stanford. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data In FY 2013, Palo Alto ranked in the 81st percentile, much above other surveyed jurisdictions for emergency preparedness. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Did You Know? Information about winter storm preparedness can be found by searching for “winter storm” at www.cityofpaloalto.org. $8 FY 12 $9 FY 13 65 Ch a p t e r 6 Em e r g e n c y S e r v i c e s Citizen Survey Operating Expenditures (in thousands) Revenues (in thousands) Authorized staffing (FTE) Presentations, Training Sessions, and Exercises Emergency Operations Center Activations/ Deployments3 Grant funding awarded to OES Percent rating emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency services) “good” or “excellent” FY 08 - - - - - - 71% FY 09 - - - - - - 62% FY 10 - - - - - - 59% FY 11 - - - - - - 64% FY 12 $595 $159 2.0 38 27 $139,300 73% FY 13 $753 $142 3.5 51 48 $24,5304 77% Change from: Last year +27% -11% +74% +34% +78% -82% +4% FY 08 - - - - - - +6% DEPARTMENTWIDE1,2 Footnotes: 1 The Office of Emergency Services (OES) was reorganized as a result of a study and recommendations made to City Council in April 2011. Data prior to 2012 is generally not available or applicable. 2 In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the City classified OES under the Fire Department for budgeting. 3 This includes EOC, MEOC, and Incident Command Post activations and deployments (e.g., December 2012 flood, Stanford football games, VIP/dignitary visits). 4 The Department attributes the decrease in grant funding awarded from the prior year to the challenging grant funding environment. 66 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s This Page Intentionally Left Blank Administration provides personnel, contract, budget, & project management support; is a liaison with other departments, Boards, Commissions & the City Council. 45% 24% 8% 3% 20% What are the sources of PCE funding? (Total = $12.6 million) New Construction Permits (45%) Plan Checking Fees (24%) Zoning Plan Check Fees (8%) Architectural Review Board Fees (3%) Other External Revenues (20%) 46% 41% 9% 4% Planning and Transportation (46%) Building (41%) Administration (9%) General Fund Reserve (4%) Chapter 7: Planning & Community Environment Department Mission: To provide the Council & community with creative guidance on, & effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing & environmental policies, & plans & programs that maintain & enhance the City as a safe, vital, & attractive community. 67 Transportation includes review of transportation studies & planning & coordination of traffic & parking operations, the bicycle route system, public transit service, transportation demand strategies, & involvement in regional transportation activities. Code Enforcement investigates complaints & resolves violations of City’s Municipal Code, & monitors & verifies compliance with conditions of approval for private development projects. How are PCE dollars used? (Total = $12.6 million) Current Planning includes environmental review & collaborative coordination with other City departments & customers/stakeholders involved in the City’s planning entitlement processes, & leads the sustainability program for development, including the diversion of construction & demolition debris. Development Services are provided at the Development Center where our Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works, Planning & Community Environment (PCE) & Utilities departments work together, professionally & promptly, to monitor & ensure compliance with local & state codes & to promote & enhance the quality of development projects. Inspection Services ensure buildings comply with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety & general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, stability, access to persons with disabilities, sanitation, adequate lighting & ventilation, green building, & energy conservation. Plan Check Services ensure plans comply with minimum code requirements as determined by the Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works, PCE & Utilities departments. Once complete, these efforts lead to the issuance of a permit to start construction. Green Building Services encourage applicants for all residential & non-residential projects to consider sustainable building materials best practices as early in the design process as possible. This minimizes costs for applicants & increases the opportunity to maximize a project’s energy & water use efficiency. Advance Planning includes administration of the City’s below market rate housing, historic preservation, community development block grant programs, & organization & development of the Comprehensive Plan. 68 Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 PALO ALTO Livermore Menlo Park Mountain View Redwood City Milpitas Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Mateo Comparison of Planning & Construction & Engineering Regulation Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita in FY 20121 54.5 54.3 50.5 47.0 45.9 53.5 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) PCE Per Capita Spending $155 FY 08 $156 FY 09 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Footnote 1 Palo Alto’s expenditures per capita may appear higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions, but it should be noted that different cities budget expenditures in different ways. YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 52% 25% 10% 6% 3% 3% 0.4% 0.1% Salaries & Benefits (52%) Contract Services (25%) Allocated Charges (10%) Rents & Leases (6%) General Expense (3%) Facilities & Equipment (3%) Supplies & Materials (0.4%) Operating Transfers Out (0.1%) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data FY 11 $147 FY 10 $146 FY 12 $158 $182 FY 13 The Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, across from City Hall, offers forms, handouts, & information about obtaining permits in addition to assistance on all aspects of construction, renovation, or development projects. Forms & handouts are also offered online. City staff from the Fire, Public Works, Planning & Community Environment, & Utilities departments monitor code compliance & enhance the quality of development projects at the Development Center. Ch a p t e r 7 Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Departmentwide Ch a p t e r 7 69 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) Departmentwide Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t DEPARTMENT GOALS Work with customers (property owners & developers) & the public to efficiently process planning, land use & zoning applications for quality design. Enhance the safety & mobility of the transportation system while protecting environmental resources & preserving the community’s quality of life. Provide a high level of customer service & decrease application review, processing & permit issuance times. Work collaboratively with City departments, which support development services, to adequately staff & respond to workload demands, meet specific performance criteria established for the Blueprint Initiative (an organization change process focused on permit & application approvals), & achieve excellent customer service. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Quality of land use, planning, and zoning in Palo Alto Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto Citizen Survey: Land Use, Planning, Zoning, & New Development Ratings (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) Palo Alto ranked in the 19th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions for quality of land use, planning, & zoning & in the 15th percentile for overall quality of new development in Palo Alto. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Traffic flow on major streets Amount of public parking Citizen Survey: Transportation Ratings (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) In FY 2013, Palo Alto ranked in the 19th percentile, much below other surveyed jurisdictions for traffic flow on major streets. Bu i l d i n g p e r m i t v a l u a t i o n ( i n m i l l i o n s ) $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Building permit valuation Building permit revenue Building Permit Valuation & Building Permit Revenue Bu i l d i n g p e r m i t r e v e n u e ( i n m i l l i o n s ) Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Ch a p t e r 7 Completed Planning Applications in FY 2013 Current Planning & Code Enforcement $72 $67 70 KEY OBJECTIVES Improve customer satisfaction & staff response time Interpret & apply building codes through inspection & enforcement Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Planning & Architectural Review Board Applications Source: Planning & Community Environment Department 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Planning applications received Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent rating quality of code enforcement "good" or "excellent" Percent considering run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a "major" or "moderate" problem Citizen Survey: Code Enforcement Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2012 (Palo Alto) Architectural Review Board 48% Individual Review Permits 28% Other 8% Conditional Use Permits 7% Home Improvement Exception 6% Temporary Use Permit 2% Variances 1% Individual Review Permit Applications Received 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of applications for a new two story single family home Number of applications for the addition of a second story Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) The Department reported 684 new code enforcement cases for FY 2013, similar to the number of new cases in FY 2008. The Department reported a total of 307 planning applications completed in FY 2013, a 19 percent increase from FY 2008. The Department reported 12.5 weeks on average to complete staff-level applications, a 2 percent decrease from FY 2008. Ch a p t e r 7 Advance Planning 71 Footnotes 1 The number of residential units for FY 08 through FY 10 & FY 11 through FY 13 are estimates from the California Department of Finance based on the 2000 & 2010 Decennial Census, respectively. 2 Source: www.zillow.com KEY OBJECTIVE Increase the number of affordable housing units Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey: Housing in Palo Alto Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Estimated New Jobs Resulting From Projects Approved During the Year -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Source: Planning & Community Environment Department 39 5 39 5 43 4 43 4 43 4 43 4 10 3 36 86 47 93 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Number of new housing units approved Palo Alto Housing Units The Department estimated a total of 28,457 residential units in Palo Alto as of FY 2013.1 The median home price for a single family home in Palo Alto was $2.0 million in June 2013, or about 14 percent higher than in June 2012.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent rating the availability of affordable quality housing as "good" or "excellent" Percent rating the variety of housing options as "good" or "excellent" Compared to other surveyed jurisdictions, the City ranked in the 1st & 2nd percentile respectively for availability of affordable quality housing & the variety of housing options, much below other surveyed jurisdictions. Did You Know? The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan is the City’s long-range planning document that includes goals, policies, and programs for how a community will manage its land use, housing, circulation, natural resources, economics and public services. The City of Palo Alto is currently undertaking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the document and extend the horizon year into the future. The amendment will revise the existing base conditions and growth projections, modify policies and programs, and update the land use map. The public is encouraged to learn about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and participate in the amendment process. For more information, visit www.paloaltocompplan.org. Ch a p t e r 7 Transportation 72 Footnote 1 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, & working at home. KEY OBJECTIVES Increase walkability & bicycle travel Decrease traffic congestion on roads & intersections Promote use of regional transportation systems Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Walking Bicycle travel Rail travel Car travel Bus travel Citizen Survey: Percent Rating the Ease of Transportation in Palo Alto as “Good” or “Excellent” Surveyed residents rated the ease of walking & bicycle travel highest, consistent with prior years. While more residents rated the ease of rail travel “good” or “excellent” in comparison with prior years, only 55 percent rated car travel “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 27th percentile, below other surveyed jurisdictions. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes Percent rating traffic flow on major streets "good" or "excellent" Percent rating the amount of public parking "good" or "excellent" Citizen Survey: Commuting & Traffic1 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 City Shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boarding Ci t y S h u t t l e B o a r d i n g s City Shuttle & Caltrain Boardings Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Ca l t r a i n a v e r a g e w e e k d a y b o a r d i n g s Did You Know? In May 2003, Palo Alto was designated a Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists. This designation ranks Palo Alto with only 16 other "Gold Level" communities. The City of Palo Alto strives to reach the “Platinum Level,” which only four other cities have reached. The award is only presented to communities with remarkable commitment to bicycling. Ch a p t e r 7 Inspections, Building Permits Issued & Valuation 3 Development Services - Building 0 200 400 600 800 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Inspections completed Building permits issued Building permit valuation # o f i n s p e c t i o n s c o m p l e t e d or b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s i s s u e d KEY OBJECTIVES Decrease number of days to issue a permit Process submitted plan check review within deadlines established Interpret and apply all applicable development code through inspection and enforcement Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Total Number of Plan Checks & Average Number of Days for First Response to Plan Checks1 Footnotes 1 These measures do not include OTC building permits and plan checks contracted out for review. The Department began tracking express plan checks beginning January 2009. Data for OTC and express plan checks for FY 08 was not available. 2 The # of plan checks within 30 days includes all plan checks that are designated for review within 30 days. Plan checks that took longer than 30 days are also included in this number. 3 Each type of inspection is counted as an individual inspection. Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Did You Know? The Department reports that projects have been getting more complex since FY 2009, resulting in more difficult plan check reviews and more inspections. Due to the collaboration of City departments, Development Services has increased the number of over the counter and express plan checks while reducing the time it takes to get a final inspection. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 # of plan checks within 30 days # of express plan checks (within 5 days) # of over the counter (OTC) plan checks Average # of days for first response to plan checks Ex p r e s s / O T C p l a n c h e c k s not a v a i l a b l e 2 Av e r a g e # o f d a y s 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 % of permits with on-time reviews % of permits approved over the counter Average # of days - permit issuance to final inspection Av e r a g e # o f d a y s On-time & Over the Counter Permits & Average Days to Final Inspection for Projects Up to $500,000 Source: Planning & Community Environment Department % o f p e r m i t s Data not available # o f p l a n c h e c k s The Department reports that although the permits issued has stayed relatively flat since FY 2008, the number of inspections follows valuation. Permits with higher valuations require more inspections. Bu i l d i n g p e r m i t v a l u a t i o n (i n m i l l i o n s ) 73 Ch a p t e r 7 Energy Savings Did You Know? In FY 2009, the Department established a new Green Building Program under the City’s Green Building Ordinance to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to live and work.1 In FY 2013, the program influenced over $569 million of project valuation. In January 2014, the City adopted an ordinance for requiring circuitry for electric vehicle charging stations in new single family residential construction. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Energy savings (kBtu/year) kB t u / y e a r FY 0 9 d a t a not a v a i l a b l e Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Recycling – Salvaged, Recycled & Disposed by Tons for Completed Projects Footnotes 1 In December 2010, the City of Palo Alto adopted the California Green Building Standards Code that requires minimum green building standards for all construction, and in November 2013, the City of Palo Alto adopted the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. KBtu – Kilo British Thermal Units 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Sq u a r e f e e t ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Green Building Square Feet with Mandatory Regulations Source: Planning & Community Environment Department KEY OBJECTIVE Promote increased levels of green building & sustainability practices with development Development Services - Green Building In FY 2013, the Department processed 1,037 green building permit applications, a 17 percent increase from FY 2012. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 To n s Salvaged Recycled Disposed in Landfill 74 Ch a p t e r 7 75 Footnotes 1 In FY 12, Economic Development was moved to the City Manager’s Office. 2 According to the Department, building permit revenue increased due to some one-time large projects in FY 13. Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Planning & Transportation Building Economic Development1 TOTAL Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 08 $0.6 $5.2 $3.6 $0.2 $9.7 $155 $5.8 54 FY 09 $0.2 $5.7 $3.5 $0.4 $9.9 $156 $5.1 54 FY 10 $0.6 $5.5 $2.9 $0.4 $9.4 $146 $5.5 50 FY 11 $0.9 $5.1 $3.3 $0.3 $9.6 $147 $7.5 47 FY 12 $0.9 $5.2 $4.2 $0.0 $10.3 $158 $9.3 46 FY 13 $1.1 $5.8 $5.2 $0.0 $12.0 $182 $12.62 53 Change from: Last year +21% +11% +22% -100% +17% +15% +36% +16% FY 08 +79% +12% +42% -100% +25% +17% +117% -2% Citizen Survey Code Enforcement Planning applications received Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff-level applications Percent rating quality of code enforcement “good” or “excellent” Percent considering run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a “major” or “moderate” problem Number of new cases Number of re-inspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days FY 08 397 257 107 12.7 59% 23% 684 981 93% FY 09 312 273 130 10.7 50% 25% 545 1,065 94% FY 10 329 226 130 12.5 53% 22% 680 1,156 88% FY 11 359 238 121 10.4 56% 21% 652 1,228 94% FY 12 325 204 101 12.5 61% 18% 618 1,120 91% FY 13 490 307 148 12.5 57% 23% 684 1,240 90% Change from: Last year +51% +50% +47% 0% -4% +5% +11% +11% -1% FY 08 +23% +19% +38% -2% -2% 0% 0% +26% -3% DEPARTMENTWIDE CURRENT PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Ch a p t e r 7 Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Advance Planning Citizen Survey Number of residential units1 Median price – single family home in Palo Alto2 (in millions) <REVISED> Estimated new jobs resulting from projects approved during the year Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Percent rating quality of land use, planning, & zoning in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” FY 08 27,938 $1.55 +193 103 395 47% 57% FY 09 28,291 $1.40 -58 36 395 47% 55% FY 10 28,445 $1.37 +662 86 434 49% 53% FY 11 28,257 $1.52 +2,144 47 434 45% 57% FY 12 28,380 $1.74 +760 93 434 51% 56% FY 13 28,457 $1.99 +142 2 434 36% 44% Change from: Last year 0% +14% -81% -98% 0% -15% -12% FY 08 +2% +29% -26% -98% +10% -11% -13% ADVANCE PLANNING Footnotes 1 The number of residential units for FY 08 through FY 10 & FY 11 through FY 13 are estimates from the California Department of Finance based on the 2000 & 2010 Decennial Census, respectively. 2 Median home price is as of June of the specific FY (e.g., FY 13 data is the median price in June 2013). Source: www.zillow.com. 3 The City is required through its membership with the Valley Transportation Authority to monitor eight intersections on a bi-annual basis. Prior to FY 10, the City monitored additional intersections when resources were available. In FY 13, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a larger scale analysis of 53 intersections was completed. 4 FY 12 data was collected and analyzed by the Valley Transportation Authority. 5 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, & working at home. Citizen Survey Number of monitored intersections with an unacceptable level of service during evening peak3 City Shuttle boardings City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boarding Average number of employees participating in the City Commute program Percent rating traffic flow on major streets “good” or “excellent” Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes5 Percent considering the amount of public parking “good” or “excellent” FY 08 2 of 21 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 38% 40% 52% FY 09 2 of 21 136,511 $2.61 4,863 124 46% 41% 55% FY 10 1 of 8 137,825 $2.65 4,796 113 47% 39% 60% FY 11 1 of 8 118,455 $1.82 5,501 92 40% 38% 54% FY 12 0 of 84 140,321 $1.46 5,730 93 36% 45% 51% FY 13 2 of 53 133,703 $1.50 5,469 99 34% 46% 39% Change from: Last year - -5% +3% -5% +6% -2% +1% -12% FY 08 -60% -25% -24% +19% -13% -4% +6% -13% TRANSPORTATION 76 Ch a p t e r 7 77 Footnotes 1 For projects up to $500,000. 2 Average number of days does not include over the counter plan checks or building permits. 3 Data was not available. 4 The Department began tracking express plan checks beginning January 2009. 5 Information is shown beginning in FY 09 when the Green Building Program was established. 6 The Department reports that due to staffing turnover and reorganization, the data in recent years may not be complete. Variances from prior years may also be due in part to a few large projects during recent fiscal years and a lower minimum reporting requirement for green building projects. Pl a n n i n g & C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t Number of permits with on- time reviews1 <NEW> Number of permits approved over the counter1 <NEW> Average # of days - permit issuance to final inspection1 <NEW> Number of plan checks within 30 days <NEW> Number of express plan checks - within 5 days <NEW> Number of over the counter plan checks <NEW> Average number of days for first response to plan checks1 Number of inspections completed Number of Building permits issued Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) Average number of days to issue building permits2 FY 08 292 -3 -3 266 -3 -3 23 days 22,820 3,046 $358.9 $4.2 80 days FY 09 230 394 123 371 704 754 31 days 17,945 2,543 $172.1 $3.6 63 days FY 10 218 326 162 289 106 665 30 days 15,194 2,847 $191.2 $4.0 44 days FY 11 371 532 109 277 134 1,129 35 days 16,858 3,559 $251.1 $5.6 47 days FY 12 345 644 123 435 132 1,335 22 days 18,778 3,320 $467.9 $6.8 38 days FY 13 470 602 121 576 233 1,365 24 days 24,548 3,682 $574.7 $10.12 17 days Change from: Last year +36% -7% -2% +32% +77% +2% +9% +31% +11% +23% +50% -55% FY 08 +61% - - +117% - - +4% +8% +21% +60% +143% -79% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING Green Building permit applications processed Green Building valuations with mandatory regulations Green Building square feet with mandatory regulations Number of tons salvaged for completed projects6 <NEW> Number of tons recycled for completed projects6 <NEW> Number of tons disposed to landfill for completed projects6 <NEW> Energy savings in Kilo British Thermal Units per Year (kBtu/yr) FY 09 341 $ 80,412,694 666,500 67 3,503 575 - FY 10 556 $ 81,238,249 774,482 69 9,050 1,393 449 FY 11 961 $187,725,366 1,249,748 13,004 34,590 4,020 3,399 FY 12 887 $543,237,137 1,342,448 23,617 45,478 5,015 1,701 FY 13 1,037 $569,451,035 2,441,575 9,408 44,221 3,955 2,703 Change from: Last year +17% +5% +82% -60%6 -3% -21%6 +59% FY 09 +204% +608% +266% +13,995%6 +1,162%6 +588%6 - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - GREEN BUILDING5 78 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s This Page Intentionally Left Blank The Field Services Division is responsible for police response, critical incident resolution, regional assistance response, and police services for special events. 5% 2% 1% 1% 6% 85% What are the sources of Police Department funding? (Total = $32.2 million) Parking Violations (5%) Stanford Service Contract (2%) Communications (1%) Spay/Neuter Clinic and Vaccination Fees (1%) Other External Revenues (6%) Other General Fund (85%) 46% 23% 11% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% How are Police Department dollars used? (Total = $32.2 million) Field Services (46%) Technical Services (23%) Investigations and Crime Prevention Services (11%) Traffic Services (5%) Animal Services (5%) Parking Services (4%) Police Personnel Services (4%) Administration (2%) The Police Personnel Services Division oversees police hiring, retention, personnel records, and training. Chapter 8: Police Department Mission: To proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. 79 The Technical Services Division provides 911 dispatch services for police, fire, utilities, public works, Stanford, and police information management. The Traffic Services Division is responsible for traffic enforcement, complaint resolution, and school safety. The Investigations Division conducts police investigations, oversees storage and maintenance of evidence and coordinates some youth services activities. The Parking Services Division is responsible for parking enforcement, parking citations and adjudication, and abandoned vehicle abatement. The Animal Services Division provides animal control, pet recovery/adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare, and regional animal services. Ch a p t e r 8 Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t $328 $32 $333 $312 80 Footnote 1 Operating expenditures comparisons do not include animal control. Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 84.7% 9.7% 3.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.01% Salaries & Benefits (84.7%) Allocated Charges (9.7%) Contract Services (3.2%) Supplies & Materials (1.2%) General Expense (0.9%) Facilities & Equipment (0.2%) Rents & Leases (0.01%) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data FY 08 $473 FY 09 $445 FY 11 $478 FY 12 $514 FY 10 $448 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Police Per Capita Spending FY 13 $485 168.5 169.5 166.8 161.1 161.2 157.2 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 7% decrease Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Noise Directed patrol Accidents Alarms Phone messages - officer followupService False Calls Fire Assist Crime Calls Miscellaneous Vehicle stops Source: Police Department The Police Department handled over 54,000 calls for service during FY 2013, or about 150 calls per day. Calls For Service The Art Center went “On the Road” offering 81 Ch a p t e r 8 DEPARTMENT GOALS Protect and serve the public through proactive and effective policing, animal services and emergency preparedness. Cultivate, enhance, and foster trustworthy relationships with the community. Minimize injury and property damage by promoting a safe and orderly flow of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. Ensure the protection and well-being of animals and people by providing responsive animal services and spay/neuter advocacy. Manage, enforce, and resolve vehicle parking regulations and issues in an effort to facilitate the timely movement of vehicles and provide for public safety within the City. Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Departmentwide $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 PALO ALTO Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Santa Clara Milpitas San Mateo Fremont Sunnyvale Cupertino Comparison of Net Police Expenditures Per Capita in FY 2012 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report FY 2012 It should be noted that every jurisdiction has different levels of service and categorizes expenditures differently. In addition, Palo Alto’s population increases substantially during the day. Animal control expenditures are not included in the comparison. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program Sworn and Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Positions Per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Fremont San Mateo East Palo Alto Milpitas Redwood City Santa Clara Mountain View Sunnyvale Menlo Park PALO ALTO Officers Civilians Palo Alto’s total staffing is higher than many local jurisdictions; however, Palo Alto’s population increases substantially during the day, by over 90 percent. On average, eight police officers are on patrol at all times. Authorized departmental staffing decreased from 169 to 157 full time equivalents (FTE), or 7 percent from FY 2008. The number of authorized police officers has decreased from 93 to 91. The Department reports it received 147 citizen commendations and 3 complaints during FY 2013, 2 of which were sustained. Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2013 (Palo Alto) Ch a p t e r 8 Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Overall Police Services “Good” or “Excellent” 82 Departmentwide Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 0%20%40%60%80%100% In their neighborhood (during the day) In their neighborhood (after dark) In Palo Alto's downtown area (during the day) In Palo Alto's downtown area (after dark) From violent crime From property crime Percent of Survey Respondents Feeling "Very" or "Somewhat" Safe Percentile rank - compared to other surveyed jurisdictions Citizen Survey: Percent Feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” Safe in FY 2013 KEY OBJECTIVES – CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Maintain and enhance the community’s satisfaction with police services. Create opportunities for increased communication, visibility, and interaction with community members. Increase quality and timeliness of response to citizens' complaints regarding use of force, canine investigations, and other internal affairs matters. Provide assistance, enforcement, and guidance to the community regarding animal services. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey: Service Ratings Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent” FY 13 Target: 90% In FY 2013, Palo Alto ranked in the 77th percentile for overall police services compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Animal control services Traffic enforcement Crime prevention Quality of their contact In FY 2013, 33 percent of surveyed residents reported contact with the Police Department, of which 81 percent rated their overall impression of their most recent contact “good” or “excellent,” ranking Palo Alto in the 81st percentile, much above other surveyed jurisdictions. The Art Center went “On the Road” offering 83 Footnotes 1 Commercial burglary includes shoplifting. 2 Violent crime includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is not included in these categories. Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program Crime Ch a p t e r 8 KEY OBJECTIVES Reduce crime rates, traffic violations, and accidents. Apprehend and assist with prosecution of offenders. Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Sunnyvale Menlo Park Mountain View Fremont San Mateo PALO ALTO Redwood City Santa Clara Milpitas East Palo Alto Violent crimes Property crimes Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year 20122 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Part II Crimes Part I Crimes 0 100 200 300 400 500 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Residential Burglaries Commercial Burglaries Auto Burglaries Residential burglaries have increased 6% since FY 2008. Residential, Commercial, and Auto Burglaries1 Part I and Part II Crimes Source: Police Department Source: Police Department In the most recent Citizen Survey, 6 percent of households reported being the victim of a crime in the last 12 months (11th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions). Of those households, 86 percent said they reported the crime, ranking Palo Alto in the 65th percentile. This indicates residents in Palo Alto are more likely to report crimes compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used and where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. The Art Center went “On the Road” offering 84 Calls for Service Ch a p t e r 8 KEY OBJECTIVE Respond promptly to urgent calls for service. Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Response to Emergency, Urgent, and Non-emergency Calls Within Target Times 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent emergency calls response within 6 minutes (Target: 90%) Percent urgent calls response within 10 minutes (Target: N/A) Percent non-emergency calls response within 45 minutes (Target: N/A) Mi n u t e s Source: Police Department Average Response Times 96% 94% 95% 93% 92% 91% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 5% decrease Percent Emergency Calls Dispatched Within 60 Seconds of Call Receipt Source: Police Department Source: Police Department 0 5 10 15 20 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Average emergency response (minutes) Target: 5:00 minutes Average urgent response (minutes) Target: 8:00 minutes Average non- emergency response (minutes) Target: 45:00 minutes In FY 2013, the Department responded to 75% of emergency calls within 6 minutes, missing its target of 90%. In FY 2013, the Police Department met its targets for average response times to emergency, urgent, and non-emergency calls. Emergency calls are generally “life threatening” or “high danger” crimes in progress. Urgent calls are generally non-life threatening, or less dangerous property crimes that are in progress or just occurred. Non-emergency calls are generally routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. Did You Know? The Palo Alto Police Department engages with the community on several social media platforms: Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaloAltoPolice Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoPolice Nixle: http://local.nixle.com/palo-alto-police-department 85 Animal Services Ch a p t e r 8 KEY OBJECTIVES Provide assistance, enforcement, and guidance to the community regarding animals. Promote responsible pet ownership through adoption counseling, education, and support services. Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Percent Palo Alto Live Animal Calls for Service Response Within 45 minutes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 13 Target: 93% In FY 2013, the Police Department responded to 90% of live animal calls for service within 45 minutes, just short of its target of 93%. Source: Police Department Percent of Dogs and Cats Received by Shelter Returned to Owner Source: Police Department Source: Police Department 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent of dogs received by shelter returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter returned to owner FY 13 Target (Dogs): 65% FY 13 Target (Cats): 8% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of Palo Alto animal services calls (Target: 3,000) Number of regional animal services calls (Target: 1,700) Number of sheltered animals (Target: 3,800) Source: Police Department Number of Animal Services Calls and Sheltered Animals 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Percent rating Animal Control Services "Good" or "Excellent" Percentile rank - compared to other surveyed jurisdictions Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Animal Control Services “Good” or “Excellent” Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) In FY 2013, animal control services ranked in the 91st percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The Department attributes the decline in regional animal services calls and the number of sheltered animals to the City of Mountain View no longer participating in a shared services agreement in 2012. The Art Center went “On the Road” offering 86 Traffic and Parking Control Ch a p t e r 8 KEY OBJECTIVES Enforce traffic laws, with an emphasis on speed reduction, red light violations, and bicycle and pedestrian safety around schools. Participate in regional and statewide initiatives designed to ensure vehicle occupant safety through the use of safety belts and to reduce deaths and injuries in crashes involving alcohol, speed, red light running, and aggressive driving. Monitor compliance with parking regulations and time limits and issue citations for infractions. Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Traffic Enforcement “Good” or “Excellent” 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 13 Target: 66% Source: Police Department Collisions Source: Police Department 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Bicycle/pedestrian collisions Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions Percent of traffic collisions with injury Nu m b e r o f c o l l i s i o n s Pe r c e n t o f t r a f f i c c o l l i s i o n s w i t h i n j u r y 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued Parking citations issued Source: Police Department Traffic Stops, Traffic Citations, and Parking Citations Collisions per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year 2011 Source: California Highway Patrol 2011 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, and California Department of Finance 0 5 10 15 East Palo Alto Fremont Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View San Mateo Redwood City Milpitas Menlo Park PALO ALTO Property damage collisions Injury and Fatal collisions Source: National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) In FY 2013, there were a total of 1,126 traffic collisions in Palo Alto. About 37 percent of these traffic collisions involved injuries. 87 Ch a p t e r 8 Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Administration Field services Technical services Investigations and crime prevention Traffic services Parking services Police personnel services Animal services Total Total spending per resident Total Revenue (in millions) Percent rating overall police services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) FY 08 $0.5 $13.7 $6.6 $3.3 $1.7 $0.8 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $473 $5.0 84% FY 09 $0.4 $13.6 $5.0 $3.7 $1.8 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.2 $445 $4.6 84% FY 10 $0.1 $13.1 $6.6 $3.4 $2.0 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.8 $448 $4.9 87% FY 11 $0.2 $14.4 $6.8 $3.5 $2.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.7 $31.0 $478 $4.4 88% FY 12 $0.8 $14.9 $7.7 $3.7 $2.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.8 $33.6 $514 $4.3 86% FY 13 $0.6 $15.0 $7.5 $3.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.2 $1.7 $32.2 $485 $4.8 85% Change from: Last year -31% +1% -2% -4% -39% +2% +3% -5% -4% -6% +11% -1% FY 08 +14% +9% +13% +6% -8% +43% +8% +1% +9% +2% -5% +1% Footnote 1 The Department revised FY 08 and FY 09 values due to prior calculation errors. CALLS FOR SERVICE DEPARTMENTWIDE Citizen Survey Total Police Department calls for service False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of call Average emergency response (minutes) (Target: 5:00) Average urgent response (minutes) (Target: 8:00) Average non- emergency response (minutes) (Target: 45:00) Percent emergency calls response within 6:00 minutes (Target: 90%) Percent urgent calls response within 10:00 minutes Percent non- emergency calls response within 45:00 minutes Percent reported having contact with the Police Department Percent rating quality of their contact “good” or “excellent” FY 08 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 19:091 81% 80% 92%1 34% 73% FY 09 53,275 2,501 94% 4:43 7:05 18:351 81% 82%1 92%1 35% 72% FY 10 55,860 2,491 95% 4:44 6:53 18:32 78% 83% 92% 32% 78% FY 11 52,159 2,254 93% 4:28 6:51 18:26 78% 83% 92% 33% 74% FY 12 51,086 2,263 92% 4:28 6:56 19:29 78% 83% 91% 31% 74% FY 13 54,628 2,601 91% 4:57 6:57 18:55 75% 83% 92% 33% 81% Change from: Last year +7% +15% -1% +11% 0% -3% -3% 0% +1% +2% +7% FY 08 -7% +2% -5% +9% -1% -1% -6% +3% 0% -1% +8% 88 Ch a p t e r 8 Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Reported crimes Citizen Survey Arrests Clearance rates for part I crimes1,5 Part I1 crimes reported (Target: 2,000) Part II2 crimes reported Reported crimes per 1,000 residents Reported crimes per officer3 Percent households reported being victim of crime in last 12 months Percent households that reported the crime (of households reported being victim of crime) Juvenile arrests Total arrests4 # of Homicide Cases/% cleared or closed # of Rape cases/% cleared or closed # of Robbery cases/% cleared or closed # of Theft cases/% cleared or closed FY 08 1,843 2,750 74 49 10% 73% 257 3,253 2/(100%) 3/(67%) 41/(66%) 1161/(21%) FY 09 1,880 2,235 65 44 11% 80% 230 2,612 1/(100%) 7/(29%) 42/(31%) 1414/(20%) FY 10 1,595 2,257 60 42 9% 86% 222 2,451 1/(100%) 9/(33%) 30/(53%) 1209/(22%) FY 11 1,424 2,208 56 40 9% 71% 197 2,288 0/(N/A) 3/(0%) 42/(36%) 1063/(20%) FY 12 1,277 2,295 55 39 9% 62% 170 2,212 0/(N/A) 4/(50%) 19/(68%) 893/(19%) FY 13 1,592 2,399 60 44 6% 86% 115 2,274 0/(N/A) 3/(67%) 35/(66%) 1143/(10%) Change from: Last year +25% +5% +10% +12% -3% +24% -32% +3% - - - - FY 08 -14% -13% -19% -11% -4% +13% -55% -30% - - - - Footnotes 1 Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part II crimes include simple assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. 3 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 4 Total arrests do not include being drunk in public where suspects are taken to a sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Clearance rates (percentages) include cases resolved with or without arrests as of December 2013. Clearance rates may not reconcile with figures on file at the Department of Justice due to a difference in the definition used by the Department and also timing differences. PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CRIME Citizen Survey: Percent of surveyed respondents feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe Citizen Survey From violent crime (Target: 90%) From property crime In their neighborhood during the day In their neighborhood after dark In Palo Alto’s downtown area during the day In Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark Percent rating crime prevention “good” or “excellent” FY 08 85% 74% 95% 78% 96% 65% 74% FY 09 82% 66% 95% 78% 91% 65% 73% FY 10 85% 75% 96% 83% 94% 70% 79% FY 11 85% 71% 98% 83% 91% 65% 81% FY 12 87% 61% 96% 82% 92% 71% 74% FY 13 79% 59% 97% 72% 93% 62% 75% Change from: Last year -8% -2% +1% -10% +1% -9% +1% FY 08 -6% -15% +2% -6% -3% -3% +1% 89 Ch a p t e r 8 Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Authorized staffing (FTE) Authorized staffing per 1,000 residents Authorized number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 (Target: 145) Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Number of citizen commendations received (Target: 150) Number of citizen complaints filed (Target: 10) FY 08 168.5 2.7 93 1.50 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1 sustained) FY 09 169.5 2.7 93 1.46 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3 sustained) FY 10 166.8 2.6 92 1.43 8 30 9 168 12% 156 11 (3 sustained) FY 11 161.1 2.5 91 1.40 8 30 9 123 12% 149 7 (0 sustained) FY 12 161.2 2.5 91 1.39 8 30 9 178 13% 137 1 (0 sustained) FY 13 157.2 2.4 91 1.37 8 30 9 134 14% 147 3 (2 sustained) Change from: Last year -2% -4% 0% -1% 0% 0% 0% -25% +1% +7% +200% FY 08 -7% -13% -2% -8% 0% 0% 0% -1% -3% +4% -85% Footnotes 1 This does not include traffic motor officers. 2 This does not include the academy. TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Citizen Survey Traffic collisions Bicycle/ pedestrian collisions (Target: 100) Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions (Target: 375) Traffic collisions per 1,000 residents Percent of traffic collisions with injury Number of DUI Arrests (Target: 250) Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued (Target: 7,000) Parking citations (Target: 45,000) Percent rating traffic enforcement “good” or “excellent” (Target: 66%) FY 08 1,122 84 42 324 18 29% 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 64% FY 09 1,040 108 37 371 16 36% 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 61% FY 10 1,006 81 29 368 16 37% 181 13,344 7,520 42,591 64% FY 11 1,061 127 38 429 16 40% 140 12,534 7,077 40,426 61% FY 12 1,032 123 42 379 16 37% 164 10,651 7,505 41,875 66% FY 13 1,126 127 43 411 17 37% 144 12,306 8,842 43,877 64% Change from: Last year +9% +3% +2% +8% +8% 0% -12% +16% +18% +5% -2% FY 08 0% +51% +2% +27% -6% +8% -58% -36% +40% -13% 0% 90 Ch a p t e r 8 Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n t Citizen Survey Animal Services expenditures (in millions) Animal Services revenue (in millions) Number of Palo Alto animal services calls (Target: 3,000) Number of regional animal services calls (Target: 1,200) Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service response within 45 minutes (Target: 93%) Number of sheltered animals (Target: 3,800) Percent dogs received by shelter returned to owner (Target: 65%) Percent cats received by shelter returned to owner (Target: 8%) Percent rating animal control services “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $1.7 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 78% FY 09 $1.7 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% 78% FY 10 $1.7 $1.4 2,692 1,602 90% 3,147 75% 10% 76% FY 11 $1.7 $1.0 2,804 1,814 88% 3,323 68% 20% 72% FY 12 $1.8 $1.0 3,051 1,793 91% 3,379 69% 14% 78% FY 13 $1.7 $1.3 2,909 1,057 90% 2,675 65% 17% 76% Change from: Last year -5% +29% -5% -41% -1% -21% -4% +3% -2% FY 08 +1% +11% -5% -37% -1% -24% -10% 0% -2% ANIMAL SERVICES 91 The Environmental Services Division operates and maintains the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; maintains a Pretreatment Program for control of industrial and commercial dischargers; provides pollution and waste prevention information and programs to residents and businesses; manages the City’s refuse programs including the collection and processing of recyclables, compostables and garbage, in addition to household hazardous waste materials and street sweeping programs. Chapter 9: Public Works Department Mission: To provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive operations for construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, facilities and parks; ensure continuous operation of our Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City vehicles and equipment, and storm drain system; provide maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing services for the City's urban forest; provide efficient and cost effective garbage collection; to promote reuse and recycling to minimize waste; and to ensure timely support to other City departments and the private development community in the area of engineering services. The Public Services Division maintains and renovates City-owned and leased structures, streets, sidewalks, storm drains, street signage, striping, and parking lots; sweeps City streets; manages the City’s urban forest; and maintains the City’s fleet. 57% 20% 10% 4% 9% What are the sources of PWD funding? (Total = $77.6 million) Enterprise Funds - Sale of Utilities (57%) Enterprise Funds - Other Revenues (20%) Vehicle Replacement Fund (10%) General Fund (4%) Reserves (9%) 38% 27% 17% 10% 8% How are PWD dollars used? (Total = $77.6 million) Refuse Fund (38%) Wastewater Treatment Fund (27%) General Fund (17%) Vehicle Replacement Fund (10%) Storm Drainage (8%) The Engineering Services Division designs, renovates and constructs City‐owned facilities, streets, sidewalks, storm drains and parks infrastructure; and provides engineering support to City departments and the private development community for construction in the public right of way. 92 Ch a p t e r 9 Pu b l i c W o r k s PWD Revenues and Expenditures by Fund in FY 2013 PWD Total # of Full Time Equivalents1 (FTEs) Footnote 1 Full-time equivalents (FTEs) do not include capital FTEs for Public Services and Engineering Services. Capital FTE information is provided under Engineering Services. Departmentwide YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data PWD Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) by Fund Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through general, enterprise, and internal service funds: •General Fund – Streets, Trees, Structures and Grounds, and Engineering services (Operating and Capital) •Enterprise Funds – Refuse collection, disposal, and recycling collection; Storm Drainage; Wastewater Treatment •Internal Service Fund – Vehicle replacement and maintenance (includes equipment) $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 General Refuse Storm Drainage WWT Vehicle Airport (i n t h o u s a n d s ) Expenditures Revenues 200.2 201.4 197.7 193.5 192.2 185.2 170 180 190 200 210 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 7% decrease 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 General Fund Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Vehicle Fund Airport Fund 28.8% 17.2% 16.2% 12.5% 11.4% 4.9% 3.7% 2.8% 2.1% 0.4% 0.01% Salary & Benefits (28.8%) Utility Purchase (17.2%) Allocated Charges (16.2%) Contract Services (12.5%) Capital Improvement Program (11.4%) Supplies & Material (4.9%) Rents & Leases (3.7%) General Expense (2.8%) Debt Service (2.1%) Operating Transfers Out (0.4%) Facilities & Equipment (0.01%) 93 Departmentwide Ch a p t e r 9 DEPARTMENT GOALS Ensure the City’s assets and infrastructure inventory are updated and well-maintained Provide high quality, cost-effective oversight of the City’s capital improvement and facilities maintenance programs Preserve the public’s health safety and ensure a vibrant, sustainable community for future generations The Department will soon be responsible for an additional service provided through the Airport enterprise fund. Transition activities began in FY 2012 and will continue through FY 2014, with the development of a business plan. This fund has been created in anticipation of early termination of the lease with the County of Santa Clara for operational and fiscal oversight of the Palo Alto Airport. FY 2013 Citizen Survey: Service Quality Citizen Survey: Services (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) Pu b l i c W o r k s Source: National Citizen SurveyTM Source: National Citizen SurveyTM Source: National Citizen SurveyTM FY 2013 Citizen Survey: Percentile Rank1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Street tree maintenance Storm drainage Recycling collection Sidewalk maintenance Garbage collection Street repair 44th Percentile 45th Percentile 69th Percentile 75th Percentile 86th Percentile 0%20%40%60%80%100% Sidewalk maintenance Street repair Garbage collection Storm drainage Street cleaning Much Above Above Similar Similar Similar 15% 11% 41% 46% 22% 22% 41% 36% 44% 40% 47% 44% 25% 36% 13% 11% 26% 24% 19% 17% 2% 3% 5% 10% Sidewalk maintenance Street repair Garbage collection Recycling collection Storm drainage Street tree maintenance Excellent Good Fair Poor Footnote 1 Based on a comparison of the City of Palo Alto’s average rating to the average rating of all jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. In most instances, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. 94 Public Services – Streets, Sidewalks & Facilities Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Maintain and enhance the overall condition of the City’s streets and sidewalks Provide cost-effective custodial and facilities maintenance services Pu b l i c W o r k s Public Services – Streets Operating Expenditures Authorized FTEs FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $2.2M $2.3M $2.3M $2.4M $2.5M $2.7M 13.8 13.4 14.0 12.9 12.9 14.0 FY 09 $36 FY 08 Operating Expenditures Per Capita Source: Public Works Department $36 $36 $37 $38 $40 Sidewalk and Pothole repairs Source: Public Works Department Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Public Services – Facilities Operating Expenditures Authorized FTEs $89 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $5.1M $5.7M $5.5M $5.6M $5.5M $5.4M 23.5 24.5 23.8 20.6 19.9 19.0 FY 09 $86 $86 $84 $82 $82 FY 08 Operating Expenditures Per Capita Maintenance and Custodial cost per square foot (Total square feet of facilities maintained: 1,608,119 square feet) Source: Public Works Department Potholes and signage repair or replacement 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 % of temporary sidewalk repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection % of street potholes repaired within 15 days of notification 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 # of potholes repaired # of signs repaired or replaced FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Custodial cost per square foot Maintenance cost per square foot 95 Public Services – Trees Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVE Maintain the health of the City’s urban forest, including proper clearance of utility lines Percent of Urban Forest pruned and Tree Line cleared1 Number of trees planted Source: Public Works Department Pu b l i c W o r k s Public Services – Trees Operating Expenditures Authorized FTEs $33 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $2.3M $2.1M $2.3M $2.6M $2.4M $2.3M 14.7 14.2 14.0 14.0 13.1 13.3 FY 09 $35 $40 $37 $34 $37 FY 08 Operating Expenditures Per Capita Source: Public Works Department Trees maintained and serviced Source: Public Works Department Did You Know? Preparation of the draft Urban Forest Master Plan began in December 2010 when the City contracted with Hort Science, Inc. to work with staff on the plan. The purpose of the plan is to establish long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. Palo Alto's urban forest consists of all trees in the City on public and private property. This forest includes street trees, park trees, forested parklands and trees in many private ownership settings. The Urban Forest Master Plan is scheduled for completion in summer 2014. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 % of urban forest pruned % of total tree line cleared 14% increase in percent of total tree line cleared from FY 2008 to FY 2013 35 , 3 2 2 35 , 2 5 5 35 , 4 7 2 33 , 1 4 6 35 , 3 2 4 35 , 3 8 3 6, 5 7 9 6, 6 1 8 6, 0 9 4 5, 0 4 5 5, 5 2 7 6, 9 3 1 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Total # of City-maintained trees # of all tree-related services completed 188 250 201 150 143 245 0 200 400 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Footnote 1 “Percent of total tree line cleared” reflects the number of trees cleared as a percent of total trees with lines in close proximity. Trees are cleared to comply with the California Public Utilities Commission’s requirements for all utilities in the state to maintain vegetation clearance from their electric conductors and related equipment. 96 Number of Private Development Permits Issued Engineering Services Engineering Services - Operation Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Provide high quality, cost-effective oversight of the City’s capital improvement programs Support the City’s infrastructure improvement plan Ensure compliance with all applicable regulations related to the public’s health and safety Pu b l i c W o r k s Operating Expenditures Authorized FTEs $34 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $2.1M $2.2M $1.6M $1.5M $1.6M $1.4M 15.9 15.6 10.2 9.2 9.2 9.7 FY 09 $25 $23 $24 $21 $34 FY 08 Operating Expenditures Per Capita The Engineering Services Division includes a Private Development group that reviews development plans and issues permits for activities including onsite grading and construction work in the public right of way. Located at the City’s Development Center, the Private Development group is an integral part of the Development Center Blueprint effort to streamline and improve the development process. The Department also provides citywide capital improvement program (CIP) support including design, engineering, contract administration, and project management. Maintaining and improving infrastructure continues to be a City priority. A few of the Division’s Capital Improvement Program key accomplishments include: Opened the newly renovated Art Center. Began construction on the Main Library renovation and expansion, scheduled to be completed in late 2014. Completed the Cogswell Plaza improvement project. Number of Private Development Permits per FTE Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Did You Know? 338 304 321 375 411 454 0 100 200 300 400 500 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 112 101 107 125 103 114 0 100 200 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 97 Capital Expenditures - Enterprise Fund (in thousands) Capital Expenditures – General Fund (in thousands) Engineering Services Ch a p t e r 9 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Provide high quality, cost-effective oversight of the City’s capital improvement programs Support the City’s infrastructure improvement plan Pu b l i c W o r k s Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 2012 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: MTC – Pavement Condition Of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2012 Every year, local jurisdictions analyze pavement conditions to help gauge their success in maintaining their local street and road networks. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in turn, collects this information to determine regional state of repair. MTC and local jurisdictions use a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score that rates segments of paved roadways on a scale from 0 to 100. The Department has implemented a plan to achieve an average PCI of 85 ("excellent" street condition) by 2019. Rating PCI Score Rating PCI Score Very Good - Excellent 80-100 Good 70-79 Fair 60-69 At Risk 50-59 Poor 25-49 Failed 0-24 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data 55 68 69 72 75 76 76 76 77 0 20 40 60 80 100 East Palo Alto Cupertino Milpitas Menlo Park Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara Palo Alto Redwood City $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Storm Drain Wastewater Treatment Refuse $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Sidewalks Streets Parks Facilities 98 Engineering Services Ch a p t e r 9 KEY DIVISION OBJECTIVES Provide high quality, cost-effective oversight of the City’s capital improvement programs Support the City’s infrastructure improvement plan Pu b l i c W o r k s Capital Full Time Equivalent (FTE) – General Fund Source: Adopted Capital Budget By the year 2015, the current cycle of the sidewalk replacement program should have reached all areas of the City, and a new cycle of sidewalk maintenance will begin. Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired Source: Public Works Department Street Resurfacing Source: Public Works Department Palo Alto's Street Maintenance Program improves and maintains 473 lane-miles of city streets. Approximately 30 percent of these streets were originally constructed with portland cement concrete (PCC) in the 1930s. The remaining streets are asphalt concrete, which is the standard material for modern street construction. PCC streets are longer-lived than asphalt streets, but are significantly more expensive to repair and maintain. In Palo Alto, many PCC streets have been overlaid with asphalt, creating additional problems and cost when the asphalt surfaces need repairs. Since FY 2011, the City Council has nearly tripled the annual Street Maintenance Program budget in order to improve the quality of Palo Alto's streets. 83,827 56,909 54,602 71,174 72,787 82,118 0 50,000 100,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 27 . 0 0 23 . 0 0 32 . 4 0 28 . 9 0 40 . 0 0 36 . 3 0 6% 5% 7% 6% 9% 8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Street lane miles resurfaced % of street lane miles resurfaced 0 5 10 15 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Streets Parks and Landscape Sidewalk Facilities 23.87 FTEs in FY 2013 99 History of Average Monthly Residential Bill Percent of Industrial/Commercial sites inspected for compliance Storm Drainage Operating Revenues and Expenditures Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Effectively manage the storm drainage system to ensure adequate local drainage Reduce storm water runoff and protect the quality of waters discharged to creeks and the San Francisco Bay Calls for assistance with storm drains Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned $119 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $5.9M $5.8M $5.8M $6.3M $6.1M $6.2M $7.1M $7.5M $3.9M $3.5M $4.3M $5.9M FY 09 $61 $54 $65 $89 $114 FY 08 Source: Public Works Department Pu b l i c W o r k s Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Operating Expenditure Per Capita 80 44 119 45 18 32 0 50 100 150 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 157,337 107,223 86,174 129,590 157,398 159,202 0 100,000 200,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $10.55 $10.95 $10.95 $11.23 $11.40 $11.73 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 65% 70% 81% 81% 89% 87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 100 Millions of gallons processed and Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered Percent of Wastewater Treatment discharge tests in compliance and fish toxicity testing (percent survival) Wastewater Treatment Operating Revenues and Expenditures Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Footnote 1 Prior to 2009 only automotive sites were reported. Beginning in 2009, inspections reported include industrial, automotive, and food service facilities. In FY 13 these sites include 40 industrial, 113 automotive and approximately 380 food service facilities. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Protect the environment and the public’s health Operate high quality, cost-effective and visually neutral facilities Inspections of Commercial/Industrial Sites1 Percent of operating expenditures reimbursed by other jurisdictions $619 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $23.9M $29.1M $17.6M $20.9M $22.8M $21.9M $31.3M $39.3M $22.4M $20.5M $19.8M $20.8M FY 09 $347 $316 $302 $313 $503 FY 08 Source: Public Works Department Pu b l i c W o r k s Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Operating Expenditures Per Capita Source: Public Works Department 111 250 300 295 300 362 0 100 200 300 400 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 64% 63% 62% 61% 60% 62% 55% 60% 65% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 99 . 3 % 98 . 9 % 98 . 8 % 99 . 0 % 99 . 3 % 99 . 8 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Discharge tests in compliance Fish Toxicity Test 8, 5 1 0 7, 9 5 8 8, 1 8 4 8, 6 5 2 8, 1 3 0 7, 5 4 6 138 97 168 236 279 216 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Mi l l i o n s o f g a l l o n s o f re c y c l e d w a t e r d e l i v e r e d Mi l l i o n s o f g a l l o n s p r o c e s s e d Millions of gallons processed Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered 101 History of Average Monthly Residential Bill1 Percent of all scheduled sweeping routes completed (Residential and Commercial) Refuse Operating Revenues and Expenditures Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Minimize waste generation and maximize recycling and reuse Effectively manage the City’s solid waste, hazardous waste and street sweeping programs Tons of Waste Landfilled Residential and Employee2 Per Capita Disposal Rate (Pounds per day disposed in landfills) $560 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $29.8M $30.0M $29.2M $31.6M $31.6M $31.5M $29.4M $35.5M $31.4M $31.0M $32.4M $29.7M FY 09 $488 $479 $495 $448 $473 FY 08 Source: Public Works Department Pu b l i c W o r k s Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Operating Expenditures Per Capita 61,866 68,228 48,955 38,524 43,947 45,411 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $24.16 $26.58 $31.00 $32.40 $36.33 $41.54 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 90% 92% 88% 92% 90% 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Footnote 1 Average monthly residential bill is based on the rate for a 32-gallon container. 2 Based on the total population of employees working in Palo Alto in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Residential Employee Source: Public Works Department 102 Vehicle Expenditures2 (in thousands) Preventive Maintenance & Alternative Fuel Consumption City Vehicles and Equipment Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 9 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Ensure the City’s vehicles, equipment and storage/dispensing facilities are safe, reliable and energy efficient Provide cost-effective preventive maintenance and repair services Median Mileage and Age of Light Duty Vehicles1 Current Value of Fleet and Equipment (in thousands) Source: Public Works Department Source: Public Works Department Pu b l i c W o r k s Operating Revenues and Expenditures Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures $233 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $6.8M $8.8M $7.8M $8.1M $8.1M $8.0M $6.9M $14.8M $7.5M $6.8M $8.7M $8.0M FY 09 $117 $105 $133 $120 $111 FY 08 Operating Expenditures Per Capita Source: Public Works Department Source: City of Palo Alto financial data 0 5 10 15 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 (A g e ) (n u m b e r o f m i l e s ) Mileage Age $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 0% 50% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 % of preventive maintenance completed within 5 days of original schedule % of fuel consumed by fleet that is alternative fuel $1 , 0 6 5 $8 , 7 0 5 $8 1 2 $1 , 4 6 2 $1 , 5 5 1 $1 , 6 3 1 $3 , 7 8 9 $4 , 2 9 9 $4 , 0 4 6 $3 , 1 2 9 $3 , 5 1 4 $4 , 2 4 7 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Replacement & Additions Operations and Maintenance Footnote 1 A vehicle is defined as a light vehicle when its gross weight is less than 10,000 pounds. 2 The actual expenditures for Replacement & Additions and Operations and Maintenance do not include depreciation. Source: Public Works Department 103 Footnotes 1 FY 11 was the first year, since 1989, the trees were officially counted. Values prior to FY 11 were estimated. 2 Includes trees planted by Canopy; data source is Public Works Department workload statistics. 3 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. Ch a p t e r 9 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Streets Sidewalks Facilities Citizen Survey Streets City Facilities Number of potholes repaired (Target: 3,000) Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification (Target: 80%) Number of signs repaired or replaced Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Total square feet of facilities maintained Maintenance cost per square foot (Target: $1.70) Custodial cost per square foot (Target: $1.16) Percent rating street repair “good” or “excellent” Percent rating sidewalk maintenance “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $2.2 $5.1 1,977 78% 1,289 88% 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 47% 53% FY 09 $2.3 $5.7 3,727 80% 1,292 86% 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 42% 53% FY 10 $2.3 $5.5 3,149 86% 2,250 78% 1,617,101 $1.75 $1.18 43% 51% FY 11 $2.4 $5.6 2,986 81% 1,780 83% 1,617,101 $1.70 $1.16 40% 51% FY 12 $2.5 $5.5 3,047 81% 2,439 82% 1,608,137 $1.74 $1.14 42% 53% FY 13 $2.7 $5.4 2,726 83% 2,450 95% 1,608,119 $1.88 $1.08 47% 56% Change from: Last year +8% -1% -11% +2% 0% +13% 0% +8% -5% +5% +3% FY 08 +19% +6% +38% +5% +90% +7% 0% +24% -4% 0% +3% PUBLIC SERVICES – STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND FACILITIES Pu b l i c W o r k s Citizen Survey Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) (General Fund) Total number of City- maintained trees1 Number of trees planted2 (Target: 250) Number of all tree-related services completed3 (Target: 6,000) Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of total tree line cleared (Target: 25%) Number of tree- related electrical service disruptions (Target: 0) Percent rating street tree maintenance “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $2.3 14.0 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 68% FY 09 $2.1 14.0 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 72% FY 10 $2.3 14.0 35,472 201 6,094 18% 27% 4 69% FY 11 $2.6 14.0 33,146 150 5,045 15% 26% 8 70% FY 12 $2.4 12.8 35,324 143 5,527 16% 28% 4 71% FY 13 $2.3 13.3 35,383 245 6,931 17% 41% 3 66% Change from: Last year -5% +4% 0% +71% +25% +1% +13% -25% -5% FY 08 -1% -5% 0% +30% +5% -1% +14% -67% -2% PUBLIC SERVICES – TREES 104 Footnotes 1 This includes permits for street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance. 2 Includes both in-house and contracted work. 3 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires that accessibility to sidewalk of buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. 4 Capital expenditures includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Overhead is not included. Ch a p t e r 9 Engineering Operating Expenditures (in millions) Engineering authorized staffing (FTE) Number of private development permits issued1 (Target: 250) Number of private development permits per FTE (Target: 77) Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired2 Number of ADA3 ramps installed FY 08 $2.1 14.6 338 112 27.0 6% 83,827 27 FY 09 $2.2 14.6 304 101 23.0 5% 56,909 21 FY 10 $1.6 10.0 321 107 32.4 7% 54,602 22 FY 11 $1.5 9.2 375 125 28.9 6% 71,174 23 FY 12 $1.6 9.2 411 103 40.0 9% 72,787 45 FY 13 $1.4 9.7 454 114 36.3 8% 82,118 56 Change from: Last year -12% +5% +10% +11% -9% -2% +13% +24% FY 08 -36% -34% +34% +2% +34% +2% -2% +107% ENGINEERING SERVICES Pu b l i c W o r k s Capital Expenditures4 - General Fund (in millions) Capital Expenditures - Enterprise Fund (in millions) Capital Authorized Staffing (FTE) Streets (Target: $3.8) Sidewalks Parks Facilities (Target: $16.9) Storm Drainage Wastewater Treatment Refuse Streets Sidewalks Parks Facilities FY 08 $3.5 $2.2 $2.7 $8.3 $3.6 $10.9 $0.0 1.4 8.9 2.0 8.4 FY 09 $4.5 $2.1 $1.9 $10.8 $5.3 $9.2 $0.7 1.4 7.1 2.0 9.2 FY 10 $4.0 $1.9 $3.3 $10.1 $1.6 $6.0 $0.2 2.9 7.1 2.7 11.4 FY 11 $5.5 $1.9 $1.4 $25.5 $1.1 $3.1 $0.2 3.0 6.9 1.6 10.0 FY 12 $4.0 $2.0 $1.2 $21.5 $1.9 $1.5 $0.7 3.0 7.0 1.6 10.4 FY 13 $8.4 $2.2 $1.7 $15.2 $2.6 $2.9 $0.5 3.0 7.4 1.6 12.0 Change from: Last year +112% +11% +49% -29% +36% +95% -33% 0% +6% 0% +15% FY 08 +144% -2% -36% +82% -28% -73% - +116% -17% -20% +43% 105 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 The Department advises that these figures are estimates. 4 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. 5 Prior to 2009 only automotive sites were reported. Beginning in 2009, inspections reported include industrial, automotive, and food service facilities. In FY 2013 these sites include 40 industrial, 113 automotive and approximately 380 food service facilities. Ch a p t e r 9 Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures1 Capital Expenditures2 Storm Drain Fund Reserves Average Monthly Residential Bill Authorized Staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned (Target: 100,000) Calls for assistance with storm drains3 Percent of Industrial/ Commercial sites inspected for compliance (Target: 80%) Percent Rating the quality of storm drainage “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $5.9 $7.1 $3.6 $3.3 $10.55 9.5 157,337 80 65% 70% FY 09 $5.8 $7.5 $5.3 $1.2 $10.95 9.5 107,223 44 70% 73% FY 10 $5.8 $3.9 $1.6 $2.7 $10.95 9.5 86,174 119 81% 74% FY 11 $6.3 $3.5 $1.1 $5.0 $11.23 9.5 129,590 45 81% 74% FY 12 $6.1 $4.3 $1.9 $6.5 $11.40 9.4 157,398 18 89% 75% FY 13 $6.2 $5.9 $2.6 $6.2 $11.73 9.6 159,202 32 87% 69% Change from: Last year +2% +38% +36% -4% +3% +2% +1% +78% -1% -6% FY 08 +6% -17% -28% +87% +11% +1% +1% -60% +22% -1% STORM DRAINAGE Pu b l i c W o r k s Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Watershed Protection Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures1 Percent of operating expenditures reimbursed by other jurisdictions Capital Expenditures2 Wastewater Treatment Fund Reserves Authorized Staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed4 (Target: 8,200) Fish toxicity test - percent survival (Target: 95%) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Inspections of Commercial/ Industrial sites5 Percent of Wastewater Treatment discharge tests in compliance (Target: 99%) FY 08 $23.9 $31.3 64% $10.9 $11.1 54.8 8,510 100% 13.85 111 99.25% FY 09 $29.1 $39.3 63% $9.2 $12.9 54.3 7,958 100% 13.70 250 98.90% FY 10 $17.6 $22.4 62% $6.0 $11.8 54.3 8,184 100% 13.70 300 98.82% FY 11 $20.9 $20.5 61% $3.1 $15.8 55.5 8,652 100% 13.70 295 99.00% FY 12 $22.8 $19.8 60% $1.5 $18.0 55.5 8,130 100% 14.60 300 99.27% FY 13 $21.9 $20.8 62% $2.9 $18.9 55.5 7,546 100% 14.60 362 99.80% Change from: Last year -4% +5% +2% +95% +5% 0% -7% 0% 0% +21% +1% FY 08 -8% -34% -2% -73% +70% +1% -11% 0% +5% +226% +1% WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 106 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Reflects all waste landfilled in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 4 Materials recycled or composted. 5 20-gallon cart (mini-can). 6 Based on the total population of employees working in Palo Alto in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Ch a p t e r 9 REFUSE AND ZERO WASTE Pu b l i c W o r k s Zero Waste Citizen Survey Tons of materials recycled4 Percent of households with mini-can5 garbage service <NEW> Percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores Residential per capita disposal rate (pounds per day) (Target: 4.50) Employee per capita disposal rate6 (pounds per day) <NEW> Percent rating recycling services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) Percent of residents recycling more than 12 times during the year FY 08 52,196 - 9% 6.00 4.90 90% 94% FY 09 49,911 - 19% 5.90 5.10 90% 92% FY 10 48,811 21% 21% 4.20 3.40 90% 93% FY 11 56,586 25% 22% 3.30 2.60 91% 89% FY 12 51,725 29% 21% 3.70 2.60 86% 92% FY 13 47,941 32% 24% 3.80 2.60 86% 91% Change from: Last year -7% +3% +3% +3% 0% 0% -1% FY 08 -8% - +15% -37% -47% -4% -3% Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures1 Capital Expenditures2 Refuse Fund Reserves Monthly Residential Bill (32 gallon container) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled3 Percent of all sweeping routes completed4 (residential and commercial) (Target: 92%) Percent rating garbage collection “good” or “excellent” Percent rating City’s composting process and pickup services “good” or “excellent” FY 08 $29.8 $29.4 $0.0 $6.3 $24.16 34.9 61,866 90% 92% - FY 09 $30.0 $35.5 $0.7 $0.8 $26.58 35.3 68,228 92% 89% 86% FY 10 $29.2 $31.4 $0.2 ($1.4) $31.00 38.0 48,955 88% 88% 83% FY 11 $31.6 $31.0 $0.2 ($0.7) $32.40 38.0 38,524 92% 89% 81% FY 12 $31.6 $32.4 $0.7 ($1.6) $36.33 38.1 43,947 90% 89% - FY 13 $31.5 $29.7 $0.5 ($0.2) $41.54 26.5 45,411 93% 85% - Change from: Last year 0% -8% -33% -87% +14% -30% +3% +3% -4% - FY 08 +6% +1% 0% -103% +72% -24% -27% +3% -7% - 107 Footnotes 1 Includes Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) usage. 2 Includes all maintenance costs, except fuel and accident repairs. Maintenance costs for 30 police patrol cars are included. Ch a p t e r 9 Revenues and Expenditures Operating Revenues (in millions) Operating Expenditures (in millions) Replacement and Additions Expenditures (in millions) Operations and Maintenance Expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of vehicle and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles (Target: 67) Percent of vehicle fuel consumption that is alternative fuels1 (Target: 27%) FY 08 $6.8 $6.9 $1.1 $3.8 16.3 $10.8 80 25% FY 09 $8.8 $14.8 $8.7 $4.3 16.2 $10.0 75 25% FY 10 $7.8 $7.5 $0.8 $4.0 16.0 $11.2 74 24% FY 11 $8.1 $6.8 $1.5 $3.1 16.6 $10.8 63 24% FY 12 $8.1 $8.7 $1.6 $3.5 16.1 $10.0 60 25% FY 13 $8.0 $8.0 $1.6 $4.2 18.2 $9.0 57 27% Change from: Last year -1% -8% +5% +21% +13% -10% -5% +2% FY 08 +18% +15% +53% +12% +12% -17% -29% +2% CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Pu b l i c W o r k s Total miles traveled of light duty vehicles Median mileage of light duty vehicles Median age of light duty vehicles Maintenance cost per light duty vehicle2 Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 08 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% FY 09 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% FY 10 1,474,747 47,040 8.7 $1,836 93% FY 11 1,447,816 47,252 8.8 $2,279 98% FY 12 1,503,063 50,345 9.7 $2,168 98% FY 13 1,382,375 52,488 9.7 $2,177 97% Change from: Last year -8% +4% 0% 0% -1% FY 08 -16% +23% +31% +34% +23% 108 Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s This Page Intentionally Left Blank 109 41% 17% 14% 14% 8% 6% Administrative Services Department (41%) People Strategy and Operations Department (17%) City Manager’s Office (14%) City Attorney’s Office (14%) City Clerk’s Office (8%) City Auditor’s Office (6%) Chapter 10: Strategic and Support Services Office of the City Manager: Leading the City in providing exemplary service and creating partnerships with citizens in an ever changing environment, in response to City Council priorities. Office of the City Attorney: Serving Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. People Strategy and Operations Department: Recruiting, developing, and retaining a diverse, well- qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community, and providing a high level of support to the City departments. Office of the City Auditor: Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City government. Office of the City Clerk: Helping administer the laws and services that directly affect the daily lives of our citizens by administering elections and records management, and maintaining the legislative process of all City Council meetings. How are Strategic and Support Services dollars used? (General Fund Total = $17.1 million) Administrative Services Department: Providing proactive administrative and financial support to City departments and decision makers, and safeguarding and facilitating the optimal use of City resources. 110 Ch a p t e r 1 0 Strategic & Support Services Per Capita Spending1 Overall $276 $253 $277 $242 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 $265 FY 12 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s 53.5 50.6 44.2 40.2 39.1 42.5 17.2 16.0 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.6 12.9 11.8 11.0 9.9 11.1 10.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 10.1 9.0 9.0 8.3 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.5 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 City Auditor City Clerk City Attorney City Manager People Strategy and Operations Administrative Services Total # of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)1 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data 17% decrease Footnote 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. Planning & Community Env. City Council City Attorney City Auditor City Manager City Clerk Administrative Services Community Services Fire People Strategy and Operations Public Works Library Utilities Information Technology Palo Alto Residents Did You Know? The Office of Sustainability was newly established in FY 2014 to promote a culture of environmental sustainability by developing an overall sustainability strategy and coordinating the City's cross‐departmental environmental sustainability activities and programs, including the: •Climate Protection Plan •Zero Waste Plan •Bay Protection Plan •Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan •Green Building Program •Carbon Neutral Plan •Palo Alto CLEAN and Feed‐in‐Tariff Program •Integrated Water Resources Management Plan •Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program Strategic & Support Services Emergency Services Police $257 FY 13 Note: This represents the City’s FY 2013 Organizational Chart. In the FY 2014 Organizational Chart, the Office of Sustainability and the Development Services Department are shown separately. 111 Office of the City Manager 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Citizen Survey: Service Ratings (Percent Rating “Good” or “Excellent”) Overall quality of services provided by the City Public information services Office of the City Manager Spending FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $2,284 $2,302 $2,526 $2,484 11.0 9.9 11.1 10.1 Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Implement the City Council’s policy direction and ensure their goals and objectives are achieved in a timely manner Lead the City’s management team to ensure the provision of high quality, cost-effective and customer focused services Advocate sound financial planning by developing and implementing operating and capital improvement budgets Promote and sustain citizen participation and engagement in public matters St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 City Manager Staff Employees Employees 104 Employees 112 Employees 101 60% 57% 63% 63% 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 The Office attributes the increase to a Citywide effort to use social media more extensively for communicating with residents and stakeholders. For example, the Police, Fire, Community Services, and other departments across the City regularly engage with the community through a variety of social media platforms to provide information and receive valuable input. Source: National Citizen Survey™ Source: National Citizen Survey™ Footnote 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Opportunities to Learn about City Services through Social Media Web Sites “Good” or “Excellent” 112 Data not available Employees 112 160 126 144 130 112 99 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of Claims Handled Office of the City Attorney Office of the City Attorney Spending FY 13 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 $2,583 $2,338 $2,753 $2,412 11.6 10.1 9.0 9.0 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Advance the public interest by providing high quality legal representation to the City Evaluate all claims and litigation promptly, resolving disputes where appropriate and vigorously defending the City's interests Identify and reduce exposure to legal risks St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 City Attorney Staff Employees Employees 100 Employees 110 124 Source: Office of the City Attorney Footnote 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. Did You Know? The Office provides training on legal issues to the City Council, boards and commissions, and City staff. In October 2013, the Office’s training on the Brown Act and Public Records Act was positively received. In 2014, the Office will conduct training on ethics and conflicts of interest. Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 38% decrease 125 92% 95% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 This was a new performance measure in FY 2012 Source: National Citizen Survey™ Percent of claims resolved within 45 days of filing Data not available Target: 90% According to the Office, this measure tracks the timeliness of investigating and resolving claims, demonstrating responsiveness to residents’ concerns and safeguarding public resources by reducing unnecessary lawsuits. With a few exceptions, anyone who wishes to bring a lawsuit for money or damages against a public entity must first present a claim to the local agency. Common claims include tree limb failures, automobile accidents, and “trip and falls.” 113 Office of the City Clerk 3.2 3.0 1.9 6.5 2.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ratio of Applicants to Vacancies for Boards and Commissions Office of the City Clerk Spending FY 13 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 $1,455 $1,246 $1,500 $1,298 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Maintain a records management program that promotes transparency, accountability and effective service delivery Respond to the legislative needs of the City Council and the community in a timely and effective manner Effectively administer municipal elections and appointments to boards and commissions St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 City Clerk Staff Employees Employees 159 Employees 154 Employees 154 Source: Office of the City Clerk Did You Know? The Office of the City Clerk’s key accomplishments during FY 2013 include the following: •Secured Council approval for electronic filings of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure and Statement of Economic Interest filings for implementation in Fall 2013. •Initiated a task force with the City Attorney’s Office to enhance the Public Records System. Processed 133 public records requests. •Improved the efficiency and timeliness of the City Council and Standing Committee minutes (104 meetings, over 320 hours in FY 2013). Minutes are typed by a contractor, reducing cost and overall production time by an average of 2 weeks. One FTE was eliminated creating an overall savings of $80,000. •Managed the 2012 Election which included four City Council seats and the medical marijuana vote. Out of the 38,313 registered voters in Palo Alto, 29,190 voted on the medical marijuana issue and 32,606 voted for Council Members. Footnote 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. During FY 2013, the Office of the City Clerk held 17 recruitments for 26 vacancies and worked with 70 applicants for an average of 4 applicants per recruitment. The Office also developed an improved Board and Commission Recruitment Program which was implemented in January 2014. Additional information on volunteer opportunities is available on the City Clerk’s webpage under Board/Commission Recruitment. Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 156 114 Office of the City Auditor Office of the City Auditor Spending FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $965 $956 $927 $984 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.5 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Add value and improve operations by providing independent, objective analysis and information regarding the stewardship, performance, and/or financial impact of City programs and operations. Provide the residents of Palo Alto, City Council, and other stakeholders with information on past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. Maintain efficient and effective audit processes. St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 City Auditor Staff Employees 266 Employees 233 Employees 258 Employees 251 Footnotes 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. 2 The fluctuation is due to numerous potential misallocations pending resolution by the State Board of Equalization. The Office of the City Auditor does not have control over when these potential misallocations are resolved. Other revenue recoveries include transient occupancy tax, alternative fuel tax credit, and/or unclaimed property which are generally non-recurring. Revenue Recoveries2 Source: Office of the City Auditor $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 (I n t h o u s a n d s ) Sales and Use Tax recoveries Other revenue recoveries New Performance Measures for FY 2013 •Percent of Audit Recommendations Accepted and Implemented: 73% (cumulative over the period from FY 2008 through FY 2013) Of the 183 recommendations OCA provided from FY 2008 to FY 2013, 133 have been implemented by City departments and 50 remain open as of June 30, 2013. •Client Satisfaction Survey Average Rating: 4.1 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being unsatisfactory) For three audit reports and one Special Advisory Memorandum (SAM) issued during FY 2013, OCA surveyed City departments to measure their satisfaction with the value of the services provided and the skill level of the auditors. Did You Know? The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) publishes its audit reports and advisory memoranda on its webpage. OCA also administers an anonymous hotline for City employees to report fraud, waste, or abuse. Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 115 Administrative Services Administrative Services Spending FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 $7,873 $6,267 $6,981 $7,042 44.2 40.2 39.1 42.5 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Ensure the City of Palo Alto’s short and long-term financial status is healthy and sound Provide timely and accurate financial transactions Ensure public funds and assets are invested prudently and are well-managed Implement performance management programs to support and enhance communication, accountability, and positive outcomes St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 Administrative Services Staff Employees Employees 26 Employees 28 Employees 29 Did You Know? The Department instituted a pilot program to expedite the solicitation process and timeline for the award of construction contracts. The Department also started tracking a new measure, Estimated Average Days Purchase Requisitions are in Queue, to monitor the timeliness of their internal process. Footnote 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. Cash and Investments and Rate of Return 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.3% 2.8% 2.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Cash and investments Rate of return on investments United States 5 year Treasury's Average Yields Source: Administrative Services Department Ca s h a n d i n v e s t m e n t s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) Ra t e o f r e t u r n The credit rating on the City’s General Obligation bonds remained AAA. Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 11,350 12,665 12,089 13,547 15,256 18,985 2,549 2,577 2,314 2,322 2,232 1,945 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of Purchasing Documents Processed and Number of Purchasing Card Transactions Number of purchasing card transactions Number of purchasing documents processed Source: Administrative Services Department 67% increase FY 13 27 116 Footnotes 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. 2 Estimated cost outstanding represents early estimates of current claim costs incurred less costs paid as of June 30, 2013. People Strategy and Operations People Strategy and Operations (PSO) Spending FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 $2,707 $2,572 $2,676 $2,855 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.6 Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 0 DEPARTMENT GOALS Attract and retain a highly qualified workforce that values and reflects diversity, innovation and a strong commitment to public service Promote collaborative and effective labor management relationships while representing the public’s interests in all bargaining matters Promote continuous improvement in the responsiveness and effectiveness of staff performance through timely and relevant employee learning and development opportunities Reduce liability exposure to the City for employee- involved vehicle collisions Provide a safe environment for employees Minimize loss of productivity and disruption of services St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s for every 1 PSO Staff Employees Employees 70 Employees 68 Employees 68 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Workers' Compensation Estimated Cost Outstanding Workers' Compensation Cost Paid Workers’ Compensation Cost Paid and Estimated Cost Outstanding2 Source: People Strategy and Operations Department Co s t ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) Expenditures1 (in thousands) Authorized FTEs1 157 130 126 134 165 137 9% 8% 6% 8% 10% 8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 0 50 100 150 200 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of new hires processed Turnover of employees within first year Number of New Hires Processed and Turnover of Employees within First Year Source: People Strategy and Operations Department According to the Department, costs continue to grow for many claims as they progress. For example, an injured employee may return to work with a level of permanent disability requiring further medical care including a future surgery. Turnover of employees within the first year usually indicates that either the job is not satisfactory to the employee and there is a voluntary exit, or that the employee is not qualified or engaged in the role and does not pass probation. In FY 2013, the City’s probation period was extended from six months to one year. The Department is planning to improve turnover through an enhanced New Employee Orientation and better recruiting. FY 13 68 117 Footnotes 1 FTE counts and operating expenditures in this section are for the General Fund only. 2 The Office of the City Clerk attributes the FY 2012 increase to solicitation of additional public interest to serve on Boards and Commissions by using various alternative advertising methods. 3 This survey was not conducted in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 4 The Office of the City Auditor attributes the fluctuation to numerous potential misallocations pending resolution by the State Board of Equalization. The Office does not have control over when these potential misallocations are resolved. 5 According to the Office, other revenue recoveries include transient occupancy tax, alternative fuel tax credit, and/or unclaimed property which are generally non-recurring. Operating Expenditures1 (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE)1 City Manager’s Office City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office Administrative Services Department People Strategy and Operations Department City Manager’s Office City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office Administrative Services Department People Strategy and Operations Department FY 08 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 $7.3 $2.7 12.9 11.6 8.3 4.3 53.5 17.2 FY 09 $2.0 $2.5 $1.2 $0.8 $7.0 $2.7 11.8 11.6 7.4 4.3 50.6 16.0 FY 10 $2.3 $2.6 $1.5 $1.0 $7.9 $2.7 11.0 11.6 7.2 4.3 44.2 16.3 FY 11 $2.3 $2.3 $1.2 $1.0 $6.3 $2.6 9.9 10.1 7.2 4.8 40.2 16.3 FY 12 $2.5 $2.8 $1.5 $0.9 $7.0 $2.7 11.1 9.0 7.2 4.3 39.1 16.3 FY 13 $2.5 $2.4 $1.3 $1.0 $7.0 $2.9 10.1 9.0 7.2 4.5 42.5 16.6 Change from: Last year -2% -12% -13% +6% +1% +7% -9% 0% 0% +4% +9% +1% FY 08 +10% -9% -3% +12% -4% +6% -22% -22% -13% +4% -21% -3% Ch a p t e r 1 0 OFFICES OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, AND CITY AUDITOR STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES SPENDING AND STAFFING St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s City Manager/Citizen Survey City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Percent rating overall quality of services provided by the City "good" or "excellent“ (Target: 85%) Percent rating public information services "good" or "excellent“ (Target: 70%) Percent rating opportunities to learn about City services through social networking sites "good" or "excellent“ (Target: 70%) Percent rating economic development "good" or "excellent“ (Target: 68%) Number of claims handled Percent of claims resolved within 45 days of filing (Target: 90%) <NEW> Percent indicating “agree” or “strongly agree” that the Office’s overall service is satisfactory <NEW> Ratio of applicants to vacancies for boards and commissions (Target: 4.0) Percent of Audit Recommend- ations Accepted and Implemented <NEW> Client Satisfaction Survey Average Rating <NEW> Revenue Recoveries Sales and Use Tax4 Other5 Total FY 08 85% 76% - 63% 160 - - - - - $149,810 - $149,810 FY 09 80% 68% 60% 54% 126 - - 3.2 - - $84,762 - $84,762 FY 10 80% 67% 57% 49% 144 - - 3.0 - - $135,118 $124,442 $259,560 FY 11 83% 67% 63% 52% 130 - 92% 1.9 - - $24,014 $71,611 $95,625 FY 12 88% 74% 63% 67% 112 92% -3 6.52 - - $111,253 $49,235 $160,488 FY 13 84% 73% 71% 61% 99 95% -3 2.7 73% 4.1 $130,760 $20,393 $151,153 Change from: Last year -4% -1% +8% -6% -12% +3% - -58% - - +18% -59% -6% FY 08 -1% -3% - -2% -38% - - - - - -13% - +1% 118 Footnotes 1 The average number of days purchase requisitions remain in queue after release by the Department. The Department started tracking this measure in May 2013. The time to convert purchase requisitions to purchase orders may very significantly depending on procurement requirements and complexity. 2 According to the Department, its goal is to increase the total purchasing card spend from a current $4.1 million per year up to $7 million to take advantage of the revenue the City receives through rebate. 3 Includes transfers and internal promotions (excludes hourly staff, seasonal staff, and interns). 4 In FY 2013, the City’s probation period was extended from six months to one year. 5 Early estimates of current claim costs incurred and costs outstanding as of June 30, 2013. Costs are expected to increase as claims develop. Prior year estimates were updated to reflect current costs for claims incurred during that fiscal year. 6 Based on calendar days. According to the Department, the number of days lost to work-related illness or injury is expected to increase as claims develop, although it is capped at 180 days per claim according to federal reporting requirements. Prior year numbers were revised to reflect the updated numbers. Ch a p t e r 1 0 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Cash and investments (in millions) (Target: $498.8) Rate of return on investments (Target: 2.10%) General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (in millions) Number of accounts payable checks issued (Target: 12,000) Estimated average days purchase requisitions are in queue1 <NEW> Number of purchasing documents processed (Target: 2,250) Number of purchasing card transactions2 Dollar value goods and services purchased (in millions) FY 08 $375.7 4.45% $26.1 14,480 - 2,549 11,350 $117.2 FY 09 $353.4 4.42% $24.7 14,436 - 2,577 12,665 $132.0 FY 10 $462.4 3.96% $27.4 12,609 - 2,314 12,089 $112.5 FY 11 $471.6 3.34% $31.4 13,680 - 2,322 13,547 $149.8 FY 12 $502.3 2.79% $28.1 10,966 - 2,232 15,256 $137.0 FY 13 $527.9 2.46% $30.4 10,466 37.90 1,945 18,985 $152.5 Change from: Last year +5% 0% +8% -5% - -13% +24% +11% FY 08 +41% -2% +16% -28% - -24% +67% +30% St r a t e g i c & S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Number of new hires processed3 Turnover of employees within first year4 (Target: 8%) Workers’ Compensation Estimated Cost Incurred5 (in thousands) Workers’ Compensation Cost Paid (in thousands) Workers’ Compensation Estimated Cost Outstanding5 (in thousands) Days lost to work- related illness or injury6 Number of claims filed with days away from work (Target: 25) FY 08 157 9% $2,696 $2,319 $378 1,561 32 FY 09 130 8% $2,502 $1,943 $558 1,407 26 FY 10 126 6% $2,682 $1,940 $742 1,506 15 FY 11 134 8% $1,694 $1,047 $646 1,372 18 FY 12 165 10% $1,606 $895 $711 1,236 22 FY 13 137 8% $1,020 $325 $695 1,815 32 Change from: Last year -17% -2% -36% -64% -2% +47% +45% FY 08 -13% -1% -62% -86% +84% +16% 0% 119 The Administration Division is responsible for the overall management of the Utilities Department including public communication, regulatory compliance, budget coordination, and personnel and administrative support to the entire Department. The Operations Division is responsible for operations, maintenance, and emergency response for the electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater distribution systems. Chapter 11: Utilities Department Mission: To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable and cost-effective services The Customer Support Services Division is responsible for customer services for the electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater collection systems including the Utilities Department customer service center; meter reading; utility billing; credit and collections; water conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; dark fiber installation project management; and liaison with key accounts. 88% 2% 10% What are the sources of Utilities Funding? (Total = $231.7 million) Sale of Utilities (88%) Interest Income (2%) Other Revenues (10%) 54% 21% 16% 8% 1% How are Utilities Dollars used? (Total = $231.7 million) Electric Fund (54%) Water Fund (21%) Gas Fund (16%) WWC Fund (8%) Fiber Optics Fund (1%) The Resource Management Division is responsible for the long-term acquisition plan of resources including electricity, natural gas, and water; contract negotiations to acquire renewable resources; rate development; and legislation and regulatory policy analysis. The Engineering Division is responsible for managing all phases of the Utilities Department’s capital improvement projects including replacement and rehabilitation of the City's electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater distribution systems and requests from customers for new services. YOUR MONEY AT WORK Expenditures by Category 43.5% 15.6% 12.1% 8.2% 7.7% 4.5% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.01% Utility Purchase (43.5%) Capital Improvement Program (15.6%) Salary & Benefits (12.1%) Allocated Charges (8.2%) Equity Transfer (7.7%) Debt Service (4.5%) Rents & Leases (2.8%) Contract Services (2.1%) General Expense (1.6%) Supplies & Material (0.7%) Transfer to Infrastructure (0.7%) Operating Transfers Out (0.5%) Facilities & Equipment (0.01%) 120 Ch a p t e r 1 1 Ut i l i t i e s Operating Expenditures by Utility Fund (in thousands) Total # of Full Time Equivalents1 (FTEs) Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Departmentwide Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Important: Utility purchases and charges were excluded from the chart above to provide better visibility over other types of utility fund spending. Utility commodity purchases and charges are shown in the chart to the left. Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Utility Fund Reserves (in thousands) $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 Electric Gas Water WWC Fiber Optics Allocated Charges Capital Improvement Program Contract Services Debt Service Equity Transfer Facilities & Equipment General Expense Operating Transfers Out Rents & Leases Salary & Benefits Supplies & Material Transfer to Infrastructure $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Electric Water Gas WWC $143 $32 $34 $16 $17 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 Electric Gas Water WWC Fiber FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 232.3 234.5 236.5 244.5 243.0 249.3 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 7% increase Utility Commodity Purchases and Charges (in thousands) Footnote 1 Does not include 20.1 Administration Division FTEs. The Utilities Department reports that of the 20.1 FTEs, 15.76 FTEs were funded for other departments. 121 Departmentwide Ch a p t e r 1 1 DEPARTMENT GOALS Maintain safe, reliable, and environmentally sustainable Utilities Provide excellent customer service Ensure fiscally sound and cost-effective services Did you know? City of Palo Alto Utilities offers a variety of programs and services, including: •My Utilities Account •Rebates and Sustainability Programs •Financial Assistance Programs Go to http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/default.asp for more information. Ut i l i t i e s Citizen Survey: Quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Source: National Citizen SurveyTM Citizen Survey: Utilities (Percent Rating Services “Good” or “Excellent”) The "My Utilities Account" customer self-service portal provides 24/7 customer access to Utilities account information and allows on-line bill payment. Source: National Citizen Survey TM Source: City of Palo Alto website https://myutilitiesaccount.cityofpaloalto.org/bdisu/public/frameset_top_html.jsp Footnote * The numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Electric Utility Gas Utility Sewer Services Drinking Water 50% 38% 29% 30% 37% 46% 52% 50% 10% 14% 16% 16% 2% 1% 3% 3% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Drinking water* Sewer services* Gas Utility Electric Utility* Excellent Good Fair Poor 122 History of Average Monthly Residential Electric Bills 650 kilowatt hour (KWH3)/month Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures and Savings Electric Residential Electric Usage 2.52 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 162.7 159.9 163.1 160.3 160.6 156.4 $76.84 $83.34 $74.11 $64.01 $65.00 $69.15 GWH2 consumed Average purchase cost/MWH Footnotes 1 MWH – megawatt hours 2 GWH – gigawatt hours 3 KWH – kilowatt hours Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Ch a p t e r 1 1 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Provide safe and reliable delivery of electric services for our customers Increase environmental sustainability and promote efficient use of resources Ut i l i t i e s FY 09 2.53 2.47 2.45 2.36 Electric Service Interruptions 2.62 FY 08 Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Average consumed MWH1 per capita Palo Alto’s average residential electric bill remains lower than Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates. In FY 2013, Palo Alto’s $76.33 was 36% lower than PG&E’s average monthly bill of $119.23. $6 0 . 8 3 $6 9 . 3 8 $7 6 . 3 3 $7 6 . 3 3 $7 6 . 3 3 $7 6 . 3 3 $0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Palo Alto PG&E Alameda Santa Clara 0. 5 6 % 0. 4 7 % 0. 5 5 % 0. 7 0 % 1. 5 2 % 0. 8 8 % $1.9 $2.1 $2.7 $2.7 $3.2 $2.6 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Fi r s t y e a r s a v i n g s ( % o f t o t a l s a l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) First year energy savings achieved through electric efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 0 40 80 120 160 0 25 50 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Av g m i n u t e s p e r c u s t o m e r a f f e c t e d an d n u m b e r o f m i n u t e s t h e a v g cu s t o m e r i s w i t h o u t p o w e r Se r v i c e i n t e r r u p t i o n s ov e r o n e m i n u t e Service interruptions over 1 minute Avg minutes per customer affected No. of minutes over the year the avg customer is without power Data not available 123 Number of Connections serving Individual Users Fiber Optics Fiber Optics Operating FTE, Revenues, and Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Source: City of Palo Alto financial data Ch a p t e r 1 1 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVE Increase value of fiber utility services to customers and ensure dependable returns to the City Ut i l i t i e s Number of Wholesale Resellers and Account-holders Source: Utilities Department Staff continues to evaluate the utilization of Fiber Optics Fund reserves to independently proceed with a phased build-out of the existing backbone. A business plan is being developed for the Broadband System Project which includes: •An assessment of potential fiber backbone extensions. •A conceptual proposal for fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) deployment. •Providing dark fiber service connections to Palo Alto Unified School District facilities. •Coordination of the Broadband System Project business plan with the development of the Smart Grid Strategic Plan. Source: Utilities Department 6.0 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $3.4M $3.8M $3.6M $3.7M $4.1M $4.7M $1.1M $1.5M $1.4M $1.9M $1.8M $1.5M FY 09 5.5 7.7 7.4 0.7 FY 08 Authorized FTEs Fiber Optics Reserves (in thousands) Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 41 47 47 59 59 72 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 173 178 196 189 199 205 140 160 180 200 220 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $4,956 $6,435 $10,190 $11,939 $14,251 $17,015 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 7.3 124 History of Average Monthly Residential Gas Bills 30 (summer)/100 (winter) therms/month Gas Ground and Meter Leaks Gas Residential Gas Usage Therms consumed Average purchase cost/therm Source: Utilities Department Ch a p t e r 1 1 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Provide safe and efficient delivery of natural gas services for our customers Increase environmental sustainability and promote efficient use of resources Ut i l i t i e s Gas Service Disruptions and Affected Customers Source: Utilities Department 173 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 12.0M 11.0M 11.4M 11.5M 11.5M 10.8M $0.82 $0.80 $0.71 $0.65 $0.53 $0.45 FY 09 177 177 176 163 193 FY 08 Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Average consumed Therms per capita Source: Utilities Department Gas Energy Efficiency Savings 105 766 939 114 111 265 18 46 58 22 35 65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Nu m b e r o f u n p l a n n e d s e r v i c e di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r o f c u s t o m e r s a f f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions 0. 1 1 % 0. 2 8 % 0. 4 0 % 0. 5 5 % 0. 7 3 % 1. 3 9 % $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $- $0.5 $1.0 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) Fi r s t y e a r s a v i n g s (% o f t o t a l s a l e s ) First year gas savings achieved through gas efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Gas energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 23 9 21 0 19 6 12 4 95 91 10 8 26 5 35 5 16 6 25 7 27 9 0 100 200 300 400 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Number of ground leaks found Number of meter leaks found $1 0 2 . 0 3 $1 1 0 . 7 1 $9 9 . 4 2 $9 9 . 4 2 $9 9 . 4 2 $7 7 . 4 0 $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Palo Alto PG&E Long Beach 125 History of Average Monthly Residential Water Bills (CCF2/month) Percent of Miles of Water Mains Replaced (Total Water Main Miles = 207 miles) Water Residential Water Usage CCF Consumed Average purchase cost/CCF Footnotes 1 The Department states that beginning in FY 13 a new database was used for tracking the number of unplanned service disruptions and the number of customers affected. The database used to track only disruptions caused by contractor or third-party dig-ins; whereas, the new database tracks all types of disruptions, including system failures, maintenance, and contractor damage. 2 CCF - hundred cubic feet Ch a p t e r 1 1 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Provide safe and clean drinking water for our customers Ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands Ut i l i t i e s Water Service Disruptions and Affected Customers1 40.4 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 2.7M 2.6M 2.4M 2.4M 2.5M 2.5M $1.41 $1.46 $1.70 $1.99 $2.94 $3.03 FY 09 37.5 37.7 38.3 38.0 44.2 FY 08 Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Average consumed CCF2 Per capita Water Conservation Savings Source: Utilities Department 374 230 291 92 70 950 17 19 25 11 10 61 0 20 40 60 80 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Nu m b e r o f u n p l a n n e d s e r v i c e di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r o f c u s t o m e r s a f f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions 4.7% of customer accounts were affected in FY 2013 1.4% 0.7% 2.3% 3.0% 0.2% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 0. 7 2 % 0. 9 8 % 1. 3 5 % 0. 4 7 % 1. 0 9 % 0. 5 1 % $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.0 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Ex p e n d i t u r e s ( i n m i l l i o n s ) Fi r s t y e a r s a v i n g s (% o f t o t a l s a l e s ) First year water savings achieved through water efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Water Energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) $6 4 . 2 1 $6 8 . 7 9 $7 2 . 0 1 $7 2 . 0 1 $9 0 . 3 2 $9 7 . 4 6 $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Palo Alto Mountain View Los Altos Redwood City Menlo Park 126 History of Average Monthly Wastewater Collection Bills Percent Miles of Mains Cleaned/Treated (Total Water Main Miles = 207 miles) Wastewater Collection Wastewater Collection Millions of gallons processed Average Operating cost/million gallon Footnote 1 Beginning FY 08, the number of sewage overflows data was derived from the California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Ch a p t e r 1 1 KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES Maintain and provide reliable wastewater services to our customers Ut i l i t i e s Number of Sewage Overflows1 25.5 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 8,510 7,958 8,184 8,652 8,130 7,546 $1,846 $1,890 $1,639 $1,789 $2,066 $2,305 FY 09 26.1 28.5 29.7 28.0 FY 08 Source: Utilities Department Source: Utilities Department Percent Miles of Sewer Lines Replaced (Total Water Main Miles = 207 miles) Source: Utilities Department Since FY 2009, 100% of sewage spills and line blockages were responded to within two hours. Authorized FTEs 164 277 348 332 131 129 0 100 200 300 400 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 40% 44% 66% 75% 63% 65% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 $2 3 . 4 8 $2 3 . 4 8 $2 4 . 6 5 $2 4 . 6 5 $2 7 . 9 1 $2 9 . 3 1 $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Palo Alto Mountain View Los Altos Redwood City Menlo Park 30.0 127 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Data provided by the Administrative Services Department. The capital expenditures includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Qualifying renewable electricity includes bio mass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. The City Council established a target of 33% renewable power by FY 2015. 4 CO2 is measured in metric tons. Ch a p t e r 1 1 Ut i l i t i e s Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating Revenues Operating Expend- itures1 Capital Expend- itures2 General Fund Transfers Electric Fund Reserves Electricity Purchases (in millions) Average Purchase Cost (per megawatt hour) Energy Conservation/ Efficiency Program Expenditures (in millions) Average Monthly Residential Bill (650 kilowatt hour/month) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Percent Rating Electric Utility “good” or “excellent” (Target: 83%) FY 08 $112.6 $130.6 $10.2 $9.4 $145.3 $71.1 $76.84 $1.9 $60.83 111.0 85% FY 09 $129.9 $139.7 $5.5 $9.7 $129.4 $82.3 $83.34 $2.1 $69.38 107.0 83% FY 10 $130.7 $126.4 $7.5 $11.5 $133.4 $68.7 $74.11 $2.7 $76.33 109.0 79% FY 11 $125.9 $116.5 $7.3 $11.2 $142.7 $61.2 $64.01 $2.7 $76.33 107.0 85% FY 12 $123.1 $118.3 $6.4 $11.6 $147.3 $58.7 $65.00 $3.2 $76.33 108.7 84% FY 13 $125.3 $124.5 $10.4 $11.8 $143.3 $61.3 $69.15 $2.6 $76.33 109.6 80% Change from: Last year +2% +5% +63% +2% -3% +4% +6% -19% 0% +1% -4% FY 08 +11% -5% +2% +25% -1% -14% -10% +37% +25% -1% -5% Percent power content Number of Customer Accounts Residential MWH consumed Commercial & Other MWH consumed Average residential electric usage per capita (MWH/ person) Renewable large hydro facilities Qualifying renewables3 First year energy savings achieved through efficiency programs (as a % of total sales) Percent customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green (Target: 25%) Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average minutes per customer affected (Target: <60 minutes) Circuit miles under- grounded during the year Electric Supply CO24 Emissions FY 08 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.62 53% 14% 0.56% 20% 41 87 1.2 177,000 FY 09 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.52 47% 19% 0.47% 20% 28 118 0.0 173,000 FY 10 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.53 34% 17% 0.55% 22% 20 132 0.0 150,000 FY 11 29,708 160,318 786,201 2.47 45% 20% 0.70% 21% 33 141 1.2 71,000 FY 12 29,545 160,604 781,960 2.45 65% 20% 1.52% 20% 25 67 1.2 80,000 FY 13 29,299 156,411 790,430 2.36 42% 21% 0.88% 18% 25 139 1.2 57,000 Change from: Last year -1% -3% +1% -4% -23% +1% -1% -2% 0% +107% 0% -29% FY 08 +1% -4% -3% -10% -11% +7% 0% -2% -39% +60% 0% -68% ELECTRIC 128 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Source of data provided by the Administrative Services Department. The capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 30/100 therms represents summer/winter usage. Ch a p t e r 1 1 Ut i l i t i e s Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating Revenues Operating Expend- itures1 Capital Expend- itures2 General Fund Transfers Gas Fund Reserves Gas Purchases (in millions) Average Purchase Costs (per therm) Average Monthly Residential Bill (30/1003 therms per month) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Percent Rating Gas Utility “good” or “excellent” (Target: 83%) FY 08 $50.4 $46.2 $4.4 $3.2 $21.8 $27.2 0.82 $102.03 46.4 84% FY 09 $49.5 $44.4 $4.5 $3.3 $26.4 $25.1 0.80 $110.71 48.4 81% FY 10 $46.8 $43.0 $5.1 $5.4 $29.6 $22.5 0.71 $99.42 49.0 80% FY 11 $50.4 $45.7 $2.0 $5.3 $34.4 $21.5 0.65 $99.42 54.3 82% FY 12 $50.9 $48.7 $5.1 $6.0 $36.2 $16.2 0.53 $99.42 51.4 86% FY 13 $35.6 $38.1 $5.0 $6.0 $32.0 $13.5 0.45 $77.40 53.3 81% Change from: Last year -30% -22% -2% -1% -12% -17% -15% -22% +4% -5% FY 08 -29% -17% +13% +86% +47% -51% -45% -24% +15% -3% Number of Customer Accounts Residential therms consumed Commercial & Other therms consumed Average residential gas usage per capita (therms/person) Number of unplanned service disruptions Total customers affected Number of ground leaks found Number of meter leaks found First year gas energy savings achieved through efficiency programs (as a % of total sales) FY 08 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 193 18 105 239 108 0.11% FY 09 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 173 46 766 210 265 0.28% FY 10 23,724 11,394,712 19,350,424 177 58 939 196 355 0.40% FY 11 23,816 11,476,609 19,436,897 177 22 114 124 166 0.55% FY 12 23,915 11,522,999 18,460,195 176 35 111 95 257 0.73% FY 13 23,659 10,834,793 18,066,040 163 65 265 91 279 1.39% Change from: Last year -1% -6% -2% -7% +86% +139% -4% +9% +0.7% FY 08 +1% -9% -11% -15% +261% +152% -62% +158% +1.3% GAS 129 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Data provided by the Administrative Services Department. The capital expenditures includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Includes commercial, industrial research, and City facilities. Ch a p t e r 1 1 Ut i l i t i e s Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Operating Revenues Operating Expend- itures1 Capital Expend- itures2 General Fund Transfers Water Fund Reserves Water Purchases (in millions) Average Purchase Cost (per 100 CCF) Average Monthly Residential Bill Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total Water in CCF sold (in millions) FY 08 $29.3 $24.9 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 $8.4 $1.41 $64.21 46.2 5.5 FY 09 $29.5 $28.9 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 $8.4 $1.46 $68.79 47.7 5.4 FY 10 $28.8 $30.5 $7.1 $0.1 $28.7 $9.1 $1.70 $72.01 46.8 5.0 FY 11 $28.4 $31.8 $7.6 $0.0 $25.5 $10.7 $1.99 $72.01 46.9 5.0 FY 12 $33.8 $41.6 $9.7 $0.0 $23.1 $14.9 $2.94 $90.32 45.8 5.1 FY 13 $40.5 $47.7 $15.3 $0.0 $34.2 $16.6 $3.03 $97.46 49.0 5.1 Change from: Last year +20% +15% +57% 0% +48% +12% +3% +8% +7% 0% FY 08 +38% +91% +354% -100% +29% +99% +115% +52% +6% -8% Water consumption Citizen Survey Number of Customer Accounts Residential water consumed (CCF) Commercial & other water consumed3 (CCF) Average residential water usage per capita (CCF/ person) Number of unplanned service disruptions Total customers affected Percent of miles of water mains replaced First year water energy savings achieved through efficiency programs (as a % of total sales) Water quality compliance with all required CA Dept of Health and EPA testing (Target: 100%) Percent rating drinking water “good” or “excellent” (Target: 83%) FY 08 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 44 17 374 1% 0.72% 100% 87% FY 09 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 19 230 1% 0.98% 100% 81% FY 10 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 38 25 291 2% 1.35% 100% 84% FY 11 20,248 2,442,415 2,550,043 38 11 92 3% 0.47% 100% 86% FY 12 20,317 2,513,595 2,549,409 38 10 70 0% 1.09% 100% 83% FY 13 20,043 2,521,930 2,575,499 38 61 950 2% 0.51% 100% 87% Change from: Last year -1% 0% +1% -1% +510% +1,257% +2% -1% 0% +4% FY 08 +1% -8% -7% -14% +259% +154% +1% 0% 0% 0% WATER 130 Footnotes 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budget documents, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as “operating expenditures” for this department. 2 Data provided by the Administrative Services Department. The capital expenditures includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Ch a p t e r 1 1 Ut i l i t i e s Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures1 Capital Expenditures2 Wastewater Collection Fund Reserves Average Monthly Residential Bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of Customer Accounts Percent miles of mains cleaned/ treated Percent miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours Percent rating quality of sewer services “good” or “excellent” (Target: >83%) FY 08 $16.6 $15.7 $3.6 $13.8 $23.48 28.0 21,970 40% 1% 164 99% 81% FY 09 $15.5 $15.0 $2.9 $14.1 $23.48 25.5 22,210 44% 1% 277 100% 81% FY 10 $15.9 $13.4 $2.8 $16.6 $24.65 26.1 22,231 66% 2% 348 100% 82% FY 11 $16.1 $15.5 $2.6 $17.1 $24.65 28.5 22,320 75% 2% 332 100% 84% FY 12 $15.8 $16.8 $1.7 $16.8 $27.91 29.7 22,421 63% 0% 131 100% 82% FY 13 $17.6 $17.4 $3.6 $16.4 $29.31 30.0 22,152 60% 2% 129 100% 84% Change from: Last year +11% +4% +120% -3% +5% +1% -1% -3% +2% -2% 0% +2% FY 08 +6% +11% +1% +19% +25% +7% +1% +20% +1% -21% +1% +3% WASTEWATER COLLECTION Revenues, Expenditures, and Unrestricted Reserves (in millions) Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures1 Capital Expenditures2 Fiber Optics Fund Reserves Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of Customer Accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles FY 08 $3.4 $1.1 $0.0 $5.0 0.7 41 173 40.6 FY 09 $3.8 $1.5 $0.0 $6.4 6.0 47 178 40.6 FY 10 $3.6 $1.4 $0.1 $10.2 5.5 47 196 40.6 FY 11 $3.7 $1.9 $0.4 $11.9 7.7 59 189 40.6 FY 12 $4.1 $1.8 $0.6 $14.3 7.4 59 199 40.6 FY 13 $4.7 $1.5 $0.4 $17.0 7.3 72 205 40.6 Change from: Last year +16% -17% -24% +19% -1% +22% +3% 0% FY 08 +38% +40% - +243% +976% +76% +18% 0% FIBER OPTICS THIS REPORT IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE BEST POSSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES This report has been printed on recycled paper You are welcome to keep this copy if it is useful to you. If you no longer need this copy, please return it to: Office of the City Auditor 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 We maintain an inventory of past audit reports, and your cooperation will help us save on extra copying costs. If you need additional copies of this report, please contact us at 650.329.2667 or city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. Our reports are also available on the web at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION WELCOMING EXCHANGE STUDENTS AND CHAPERONES FROM TSUCHIURA CITY, IBARAKI, JAPAN WHEREAS, exchange programs between middle schools is the foundation of the Sister City program, which attempts to promote international and intercultural understanding amongst our youth; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Tsuchiura City have worked together to involve their respective middle school students and their families in cultural and educational exchanges and special programs; and WHEREAS, the opportunity to host Tsuchiura students here and to send Palo Alto students to Tsuchiura, Japan has proven to be mutually beneficial; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto thanks Tsuchiura City for their generosity and hospitality tended toward young people from Palo Alto for the last 18 years. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Nancy Shepherd, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby express our heartfelt welcome and record congratulations and the best wishes of the City of Palo Alto to Ms. Manami Wada, Mr. Hiroshi Fukushima and 16 students (Daisuke Akabane, Hinako Shigenaga, Riku Matsuoka, Rinka Yamaguchi, Yuta Tanabe, Rina Takezawa, Kanae Noguchi, Natsumi Matsuo, Kazuki Kuriyama, Emi Ito, Hiroaki Okuya, Nagisa Takizawa, Sayaka Iida, Kanako Izumi, Tomoya Haginoya, Ayaka Inami). Presented: March 17, 2014 __________________________ Nancy Shepherd Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 17, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Cancellation of April 14, 2014 Council meeting Staff respectfully requests that the City Council cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of Monday, April 14, 2014. Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4546) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of COPS Funds Title: Approval of the Acceptance and Expenditure of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds on Various Law Enforcement Equipment and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Police RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Accept Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California and approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance to increase revenue in the amount of $105,890 in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF); 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to increase funding in the amount of $105,890 in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund for the purchase of safety equipment outlined below; and 3. Approve of the expenditure of an additional $51,110 in prior year’s COPS funds for the purchase of ETGI Wireless Remote Audio Perimeter Sharing (WRAPS) System, Active Shooter/Rapid Response Vests, Temporary Evidence Storage Lockers, Warranties and Accessories for prior- approved Electronic Control Device replacements, Handheld Electronic Citation System, and GPS Trackers. BACKGROUND Since 1997, the California State Budget Act has included allocations to counties and cities for the COPS program. This funding is intended to fill the need for additional resources at the local level to ensure public safety. Under the provisions of Government Code Section 30061, a percentage of the funds are allocated to counties and cities, based upon population, for law enforcement services. Funds must supplement existing services and cannot be used to supplant any existing funds. Each city is also required to deposit the funds into a separate Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund so that these funds are not intermingled with General Fund dollars. Previous uses of COPS funds have included the purchase of a replacement K-9 unit, crime scene evidence collection vehicle, firearm instructor hearing protection, surveillance equipment, interview City of Palo Alto Page 2 recording system, mobile data terminals, youth program activities, upgrades to the telecommunications infrastructure, upgrades to the patrol vehicle and traffic motorcycle programs, property and evidence operational and security improvements, an additional sergeant position for the Special Problems Team, and a Captain position and associated training to assist in the City’s homeland security efforts. Last year, Council approved COPS funding for the purchase of a Tactical Thermal Night Vision Binoculars/Camera, replacement of Electronic Control Devices, Two-Factor Authentication Equipment, a Cellebrite Physical Cell Phone Analyzer, Crime Prevention Software, additional equipment for the Designated Rifle Officer Program, a Crisis Negotiation Team Phone Console, and Law Enforcement Automated Personnel System. The Police Department has received funds each year under this program since its inception in 1998. Annual allocations have averaged $100,000 over the last few years. DISCUSSION Staff proposes to use the COPS funds in the following manner: ETGI WRAPS System: $4,000 The Special Weapons and Tactics Team along with the Crisis Negotiation Team respond to emergencies such as barricaded suspects and hostage takings. Communication between the supervisors of those teams and senior police Command Staff is essential to ensure a safe and well-coordinated resolution. In years past several shortcomings have been noted both in actual incidents and in training exercises. Those shortcomings involve the fact that there were no secure and reliable ways for negotiation supervisors to maintain real time communications with police commanders while monitoring negotiations with the suspect. This has resulted in delays and miscommunications which have a potential for negative consequences; the ETGI WRAPS system solves the issue. The ETGI WRAPS system is a secure wireless communications system which allows the team supervisors and police Command Staff to maintain constant communication and relay exigent events in real time. The purchase of this system will increase safety to our officers and bolster our abilities to safely resolve an emergency incident. Active Shooter/Rapid Response Vests: $29,000 The purchase of "Rapid Response Plate Carrier" vests allows Patrol Officers an advanced level of protection from high caliber weapons. The "one-size-fits-all" vests can be quickly donned in emergencies and allow officers the added ability to carry medical supplies, extra ammunition and other items essential for an effective police response to extraordinary situations. The Department is anticipating purchasing approximately 35 vests. Temporary Evidence Storage Lockers: $20,000 The chain of custody of evidence is of paramount importance in criminal cases. Temporary evidence storage lockers that are functional and secure are one of the most critical components of this chain, as they are where the evidence is transferred from the police officer in the field to the evidence technician in the station. The current temporary evidence storage lockers, located in the Police Building are outdated and could pose a threat to the integrity of the evidence being stored within, as the reliability of the structure continues to dilapidate. The Department anticipates purchasing approximately 23 lockers. Warranties and Accessories for prior-approved Electronic Control Device (ECDs) Replacements: $53,000 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Last year, Council approved the purchase of replacement Electronic Control Devices. This purchase is for the required accessories and warranties to properly maintain these devices. The proper maintenance of these products will ensure that they will perform as necessary. The Department anticipates purchasing 75 ECDs. Handheld Electronic Citation System: $45,000 An "E-Cite" device is an electronic device that issues citations. An officer using an E-Cite device will be able to write the citation more quickly, allowing the officer to be more productive. Officers are able to use the search function allowing the device to be a resource for officers and help aid their investigation. Once a citation is completed, the citation is electronically sent to the court house, eliminating the need for records personnel to manually enter the information which will save time for officers and records personnel. Funding will allow the Department to purchase five E-Cite devices which will be used primarily by the traffic team. GPS Trackers: $6,000 Increasingly, the use of GPS technology in criminal cases is an invaluable investigative tool. Technology in this area is constantly improving, and the latest technology will allow detectives to more successfully investigate cases and prepare them for successful prosecution. Permissible utilization of a GPS device to covertly follow a suspect will be obtained through a court approved warrant, as required by law. Staff proposes using $6,000 to purchase the latest in GPS technology. RESOURCE IMPACT A total of $157,000 of expenditures are anticipated, all of which will be covered by grant funding, and remaining balances in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF). There will be no impact to the General Fund as ongoing maintenance costs for the items purchased by the SLESF will be absorbed in the Department’s existing non-salary budget. The City received the official notice from the California Department of Finance in January 2014 that the City’s COPS allocation for Fiscal Year 2014 is $105,890. Revenues and expenses of $105,890 will be budgeted in the City’s SLESF through a Budget Amendment Ordinance. The remaining $51,110 in expenditures will be funded by existing accumulated interest and residual funds from prior years already in the SLESF. There is sufficient funding in the SLESF to cover these expenditures. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Expenditures of funds associated with COPS funds are consistent with City Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Acceptance of COPS funding and the proposed expenditures for public safety equipment are not projects subject to CEQA requirements. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF) ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO INCREASE REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR CITIZEN OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (SLES) SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BY $105,890 WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOCATION OF $105,890 IN THE SLES FUND. 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. The City of Palo Alto received official notice from the California Department of Finance in January 2014 that the City’s COPS allocation for Fiscal Year 2014 is $105,890. Under the provisions of Government Code Section 30061, a percentage of the funds are allocated to counties and cities, based upon population, for law enforcement services; and C. COPS funding is intended to fill the need for additional resources at the local level to ensure public safety. Funds must supplement existing services and cannot be used to supplant any existing funds; and D. The Police Department’s spending plan for the FY 2014 SLES Funds include the purchase of ETGI Wireless Remote Audio Perimeter Sharing (WRAPS) System, Active Shooter/Rapid Response Vests, Temporary Evidence Storage Lockers, Warranties and Accessories for prior-approved Electronic Control Device replacements, Handheld Electronic Citation System, and GPS Trackers; and E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2014 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The revenue estimate from the State of California in the amount of One-Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety ($105,890) is hereby increased in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (SLES) Special Revenue Fund and the Facilities and Equipment Allocation in the SLES Fund is correspondingly increased. SECTION 3. The Facilities and Equipment Allocation in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Special Revenue Fund is hereby increased by One-Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety ($105,890). SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 6. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ City Clerk __________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney __________________________ City Manager __________________________ Chief of Police __________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4523) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Revenue Agreement SCC - Homeless Services Title: Revenue Agreement with the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve, and delegate signature authority to the City Manager to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with the County of Santa Clara (County), authorizing the City of Palo Alto (City) to provide funding in the amount of $250,000 over two years for support of Intensive Case Management in connection with housing subsidies to be provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. Background In response to the homeless situation at the Cubberley Community Center, staff brought forth response options first to the Policy and Services Committee (August 13, 2013, see Attachment B) and then a specific recommendation to the City Council (October 7, 2013, see Attachment C), on approaches to positively impact homelessness in Palo Alto. The recommendation presented and approved by the Council on October 7, 2013 will provide City funding in the amount of $250,000 for the support of intensive case management in collaboration with housing subsidy funds provided by the County to assist individuals who have contact with the criminal justice system, have a high chance of recidivism, significantly impacted County, State or local resources and are currently homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The County subsidies can be utilized for permanent supportive housing or long-term transitional housing. Staff expects to provide assistance to 20 individuals. The County will budget $518,000 for subsidies and administration costs over the next 24 months. An intensive case manager will work with an individual to ensure the client's needs are met in a variety of contexts. Staff also recommended that the City enter into an agreement with the County's Mental Health Department to release City of Palo Alto Page 2 the Request for Proposal (RFP) and provide oversight of the intensive case management agencies. That RFP is currently released with a deadline to reply of March 12, 2014. Due to the immediate nature of the request, City Council recommended the use of the City Council Contingency funds with a subsequent replenishment from the General Fund Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $125,000. On November 18, 2013, staff returned to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance #5225 (BAO) in the amount of $125,000 to replenish the City Council Contingency Fund from the General Fund Stabilization Reserve. Discussion Under this contract (Attachment A), the City shall reimburse the County for expenses associated with the intensive case management services (listed as “Program” in the contract) in an amount not to exceed $250,000 through June 30, 2016, thus allowing the Program to serve approximately 20 unduplicated Program clients. Resource Impact This agreement has a total expenditure of $250,000 or $125,000 per year for two years. In FY 2014, the funding was transferred from the Council Contingency fund to the operating budget of the Community Services Department. The funding for Fiscal Year 2015 will be included one- time in the Community Services Department section of the Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Operating Budget. Attachments: Attachment B-Excerpt from 8-19-13 P & S mtg (DOC) Attachment C - Excerpt from 10-7-13 Council Meeting (DOCX) ATTACHMENT A - REVENUE AGREEMENT CITY OF PALO ALTONEW (PDF) POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 13 EXCERPT ONLY Special Meeting August 13, 2013 Agenda Items 1. Consideration of Approaches to Positively Impact Homelessness and Ordinance Regarding Establishment of Community Center Hours, including Cubberley, Stern and Mitchell Community Centers. Rob De Geus, Assistant Director of Community Serves reported Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley) was a de facto homeless shelter with approximately 20 people residing on the campus and 18-20 vehicle dwellers using the parking lot nightly. Fighting, bathing, cooking in bathrooms, storage of belongings across the campus, verbal abuse of City Staff, use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and trespassing in classrooms occurred daily. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Program Manager indicated a point-in-time count found 7,600 homeless people in Santa Clara County and 157 homeless people in Palo Alto. Requests for homeless services totaled 28,000. A shortfall of affordable rental housing and an increase in poverty were primarily responsible for the rise in homelessness. Staff worked with the Police Department, the City Manager's Office, and service providers to analyze potential workable solutions. Since July 31, 2013, Staff and counselors from the Downtown Streets Team monitored showers at Cubberley and attempted to connect individuals with services. Staff decided to close the showers at Cubberley effective August 31, 2013. Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team mentioned that the purpose of the needs assessment and outreach was to inform the Council about the nature of the problem and possible solutions. The average number of people using the Cubberley showers was 20.75. Approximately 13 vehicles utilized the parking lot at Cubberley nightly, and an average of 11 people camped on the Cubberley campus without a vehicle. Respondents to the assessment lived in Palo Alto for an average of 12 years. Respondents primarily utilized programs for food and meals, medical care, and lockers for storage. Of the 16 respondents, nine utilized showers at the Opportunity Center, and seven MINUTES Page 2 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 did not; 11 were interested in transitional or emergency shelter; and 14 wanted to work with a case manager on permanent subsidized housing. Greg Penzinger, Downtown Streets Team Project Manager provided shower alternatives to the Cubberley homeless population. Many did not know where they would go for showers once the program ceased on August 31, 2013. Ms. Van Der Zwaag believed the most effective method to address the homeless issue at City facilities was a comprehensive, community-wide approach. Staff requested the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) to review alternatives for multi-agency partnerships. One recommendation was funding the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT). Mila Zelkha, InnVision Shelter Network noted a HOT Team was one of many tools that could be used. The proposal was meant to start a multi-agency dialog regarding homelessness. The community working group offered to convene a homeless services task force. Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained that a HOT Team was a cross-functional group of service providers working together to move homeless people into housing and to provide people with stability. A HOT Team managed, engaged, transported and secured housing for homeless residents. The team first focused on individuals at Cubberley, then expanded to other homeless areas in Palo Alto. The cost for a HOT Team program was approximately $150,000 annually. Staff's second recommendation was to have housing subsidies be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County). The County had possible funding for a combination of transitional and long-term rent subsidies for ten homeless individuals who primarily had contact with the criminal justice system. The suggested funding was divided between City and County: County provided funding for rental subsidies and the City provided funding for a case manager for two years. The project was managed by a local homeless service provider selected by the County. Experts indicated incentives worked best when combined with an element of enforcement. Staff, therefore supported a Committee recommendation to the Council of an Ordinance to define reasonable hours of public access to community facilities. The proposed Ordinance did not affect any prescheduled use of City facilities. Greg Betts, Director of Community Services wanted to consider the best operation of Cubberley for the safety of Staff, visitors and program users when attempting to determine solutions to the homeless issue. MINUTES Page 3 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Chair Kniss was interested in taking a human services approach to the issue. She acknowledged residents' concerns about Cubberley, but wanted to work toward a solution that provided enforcement and oversight. Ron Watson, Police Captain reported an increase in activity at Cubberley. He noted that it was a small number of the homeless population that was creating a problem. The previous evening, police officers arrested a female carrying a large number of baggies containing methamphetamines. Two weeks prior, police officers struggled with and arrested an intoxicated, belligerent individual at Cubberley. Enforcement and services were needed at Cubberley. Chair Kniss noted that police officers utilized overtime to monitor Cubberley. Council Member Klein inquired about the cost of overtime to monitor Cubberley. Mr. Watson stated monitoring six hours a night cost the City approximately $14,000 per month, $170,000 per year. Council Member Holman inquired about the length of time between funding a program for the homeless and seeing the positive results. Dr. Brian Greenberg, InnVision Shelter Network explained HOT would ask police officers to identify homeless people with the most complaints and emergency room contacts. Moving the most difficult homeless people into housing created a different quality of life for the entire community. The implementation period of HOT was approximately 30-60 days. The HOT list was limited to 30-40 names; they needed to move one-fourth of those on the list to housing in the first year and one-half each subsequent year. Council Member Holman felt one of the difficulties of any program was the immediate impact on the people. She inquired about the relationship between InnVision and healthcare providers in terms of services and funding. Mr. Greenberg worked with police officers to detain people that were chronically inebriated and try to offer them services. InnVision encouraged transition from the streets to a shelter, which included services and placement into housing. InnVision worked with police officers, medical professionals, and community-based organizations in a village approach. InnVision worked with homeless people to make better decisions and to move out of poverty. MINUTES Page 4 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Council Member Holman asked about InnVision's relationship with medical service providers. Mr. Greenberg believed substance abuse recovery services were a critical component to sustaining housing. InnVision used Hotel de Zink as a transition to housing. InnVision attempted to engage homeless people for behavioral healthcare services prior to housing them. Council Member Holman inquired whether the National Guard Armory in Sunnyvale could be utilized for housing outside of the November to March timeframe. Ky Le, Director of Homeless Systems for the County believed the National Guard Armory could be utilized as interim housing from November to March if the individuals had a place to go after their interim stay at the shelter. Council Member Holman asked if the National Guard Armory could be used as a shelter beyond the November to March timeframe. Mr. Le reported the County did not budget for that service but could discuss the option with the Cities of Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. Generally, the County did not expand emergency shelter services, but attempted to provide direct access to permanent or long-term housing. Council Member Holman inquired about InnVision's proposal to form a HOT Team. Ray Bacchetti, Homeless Services Task Force indicated many areas of expertise were needed for the homeless issue. HOT Teams, along with other actions were being considered for a comprehensive program. Council Member Holman wanted to see an organizational chart to identify services, responsibilities, and funding. Mr. Bacchetti stated an organizational chart existed in part but needed to be compiled into one group. Council Member Price felt this conversation was a beginning to many partnerships. She inquired whether a HOT Team approach could provide resources in Palo Alto. Mr. Greenberg related that HOT Teams were operating in Redwood City, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto, although they were not the answer to the entire homeless problem; many providers were still needed to work with homeless people. Moving the most difficult homeless situations into housing was going to provide the greatest impact to the community. MINUTES Page 5 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Ms. Zelkha listed three consistent questions regarding homelessness in Palo Alto were whether Palo Alto was a magnet for homeless people, did Palo Alto residents do their fair share, and what happened to a homeless person who was turned away from services. She assembled a multidisciplinary team to consider the three questions when conducting an audit of existing services for the homeless situation in the mid-Peninsula region. In working with the unhoused, the task force considered approaches that were specific to Palo Alto. Council Member Price inquired about how to measure outcomes and/or success with the HOT Team approach and whether partner organizations already had existing strategic plans. Ms. Zelkha did not know who the partner organizations were or what they offered. She mentioned that the task force would gather resources, expertise, and knowledge. Mr. Greenberg explained that the HOT Team list never reached zero because police departments added new names to the list as others were removed. He encouraged the Committee to contact the chief of police in San Mateo and Redwood City regarding their experiences with the HOT Program. . Council Member Klein asked where the homeless population would go if the proposed Ordinance closing community centers passed. Ms. Zelkha replied saying that was the reason multiple agencies, including the County were needed for a solution. The task force included the Community Working Group and Palo Alto Housing Corporation, two housing service providers; the homeless were displaced as of August 31, 2013. Council Member Klein believed the number of homeless people at Cubberley increased within the past year. He asked if there was another area where the homeless population would move to if Cubberley closed. Ms. Zelkha did not know but said one possibility was expanding the Hotel de Zink program. She added that it was not possible for a service provider to create housing. Mr. Greenberg indicated that many graduates of the shelters frequently worked in the service sector on one side of the Bay and lived on the other side. Those workers were not able to afford to live in Palo Alto or San Francisco. Mr. Watson reported the highest count of homeless people that were non- vehicle dwellers, living at Cubberley on a single night in the past two weeks MINUTES Page 6 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 was around 30. The number of people varied from four to 15 people. He noted that the police presence seemed to discourage the homeless population at Cubberley. Council Member Klein inquired about the number of vehicle dwellers at Cubberley. Mr. Watson indicated it varied from 9 to 20 over the past few weeks. Chair Kniss opened the meeting up to public comment. Edie Groner depended on Cubberley Community Center for education and recreation. The proposed Ordinance did not prevent Cubberley from being used as a shelter during the day. Alice Smith thanked Staff for an interesting and detailed report. She thought a task force should be implemented to find a working solution to homelessness and she requested that the Committee not adopt the proposed Ordinance until the City had a working solution. Karen Sundback supported adoption of the proposed Ordinance, but did not support the homeless program at Cubberley. The program did not have a schedule for removing homeless people from Cubberley. She did not think a community center should be a homeless shelter. Palo Alto Free Press believed the homeless problem at Cubberley could have been prevented by the Human Relations Commission (HRC). They thought the Public Defender should be involved in the HOT Team, rather than the District Attorney. Ray Bacchetti, Homeless Services Task Force expressed interest in working with City Staff to develop an implementation strategy to leverage City funds. He added that the expertise of many agencies could help with the homeless challenge. Diane Jones offered her time and experiences as a homeless person to find a long-term solution to the problem. She added that most service providers catered to drug abusers. Litsie Indergand, a supporter of The Opportunity Center endeavored to find a positive solution for the homeless. Katie Fantin, Vineyard Christian Fellowship of the Peninsula reported several of the homeless people at Cubberley were open to other housing options. MINUTES Page 7 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 She was concerned about closing Cubberley without having alternatives in place for the homeless people. Andrew Voltmer encouraged the City to preserve Cubberley as a community center and not a homeless shelter. Judith Schwartz felt the ideas presented were good; however, the deadline for closing Cubberley was only two weeks away. She wanted the community to find an alternative location for a temporary shelter and suggested the transition time be extended. Lynn Huidekoper inquired whether the Committee had completed a formal needs assessment at Cubberley. Chair Kniss was unaware of an assessment being performed at Cubberley; she requested Staff to contact Ms. Huidekoper with information. Ms. Huidekoper believed the bulk of vehicle dwellers were middle class citizens with jobs. The shower facilities at The Opportunity Center were not sufficient for the number of homeless people needing the facilities. She thought closing Cubberley should be delayed until an alternative site could be found. Gertrude Reagan asked the Committee to delay implementation of the proposed Ordinance to allow a transition period. Greg Rodgers noted the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance would not be enforced until the end of 2013; however, the Committee was considering a proposal that would implement the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance. He asked where the vehicle dwellers would go if the proposed Ordinance was adopted. Aram James reported violation of the proposed Ordinance would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. He suggested the second reading of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance be removed from the Consent Calendar at the August 19, 2013 Council meeting. The task force did not include representatives of the homeless population. William Conlon wanted to ensure homeless people were not forced out of Palo Alto. He thought the City should give the community time to identify resources and possible solutions. Lois Salo stated the homeless were humans and deserved to have a decent life. MINUTES Page 8 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Cybele supported formation of the task force. She suggested vehicle dwellers utilize the Veterans Administration parking lot, that a transition period be implemented, and that the second reading of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance be removed from the Consent Calendar. Penny Ellson supported the proposed Ordinance and requested additional restrictions be implemented at Cubberley. The homeless problem at Cubberley began two years ago and the homelessness situation required a regional solution. Carolyn Doberuiv indicated Cubberley was important as a community center. A transitional shelter was a potential solution. Elizabeth Alexis felt Cubberley should be closed to the homeless. Many parking programs for vehicle dwellers did not provide amenities. Raj Achutha Narayan believed Cubberley was a magnet for homeless people. Homeless people left their belongings under the soccer stands and moved in once the games ended in the evening. Mary Anne Deierlein expressed concern about homeless people occupying Cubberley during the daytime. He did not think Cubberley should serve as a de facto homeless shelter. Chuck Jagoda stated the homeless population at Cubberley had pride. Edie Keating inquired whether closing Cubberley at night would impede the work of the HOT Team. She requested the Committee consider a multi-city parking program for vehicle dwellers. Nick Selby supported a multi-agency partnership and dialog. He thought that if Cubberley closed at night, homeless people would disperse to other areas. Mary Shaw did not feel safe walking at Cubberley. She wanted the proposed Ordinance to be adopted and wanted an alternative location to be found for the vehicle dwellers. Michael Hollingshead reported that Stanford Hospital wanted to be a collaborative partner in the homeless issue and added that the Palo Alto Homeless Coalition included the Public Defender's Office. MINUTES Page 9 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Pastor Paul Bains founded Project “We Hope,” which built a shelter in East Palo Alto. He announced that homeless people in Palo Alto were invited to the shelter and to use the showers. Chair Kniss asked the location of the shelter. Mr. Bains specified the address was 1858 Bay Road, East Palo Alto. The shelter fed and housed 50 people nightly; the Opportunity Center and Downtown Streets Team referred some people to We Hope. Paul Mitchell was a vehicle dweller at Cubberley and said the Opportunity Center did not have enough showers. He suggested Cubberley not be closed to vehicle dwellers because of this fact. Barbara Goodwin felt it was unfair for the “difficult” homeless people to receive the majority of attention and services proposed by the HOT Team and requested the Committee consider postponing the ban on vehicle habitation. Stephanie Munoz felt the City should provide monitors for the homeless population at Cubberley and register all homeless people using Cubberley. Mr. Betts clarified that The Opportunity Center had five operational showers. Mr. De Geus reported The Opportunity Center had shower programs, drop-in centers for individuals and families, lockers for storage, healthcare, and case management. Chair Kniss added that The Opportunity Center offered mental health services. Mr. De Geus noted the closing of Cubberley in two weeks related to the showers only. Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager declared City Staff was not qualified to operate a shelter and said the proposed Ordinance should include the plazas around City Hall; therefore, Staff requested the Committee add those areas to the language of the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff supported implementation of the HOT Program now or after review of a task force recommendation. MINUTES Page 10 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Mr. De Geus reported the HOT Program was the first program discussed. Partner agencies met and discussed other programs and requested time to draft a recommendation. Council Member Klein requested Staff's recommendation. Mr. De Geus indicated Staff's recommendation was to implement a HOT Team Program, with some flexibility within the program. Council Member Klein suggested the recommendation to the Council should be to spend $150,000 on a program to be determined by Staff, subject to approval by the Council. Mr. De Geus agreed with Council Member Klein. Ms. Antil added that Staff would provide more details regarding a program when the recommendation was presented to the Council. Council Member Holman inquired about the cost to increase the police presence at Cubberley from 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. for 30 days. Mr. Watson reported the cost would be $28,000 per month. The Police Department was short of personnel and had difficulty filling normal overtime. With other overtime requests, officers were possibly not available for overtime at Cubberley. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to recommend the City Council: 1) refer matter to the Human Relations Commission, charge Human Relations Commission and relevant City Staff to identify a structured proposal within 30 days with potential funding sources and a request for funding to address homeless issues discussed this evening with additional critical related matters. Such a structured proposal would include relevant organizations, related programs and responsibilities, relevant funding and a means to measure success. Proposal will not be the final word on this subject but intended to get the City on solid near-term footing for solutions; 2) provide $75,000 to expand the Hotel de Zink program, continue Downtown Street Teams work, and look at expanding Sunnyvale Armory opening earlier; and 3) direct Staff to turn off Wi-Fi at library closing time until opening time the following day; turn off electricity to external outlets at closing time; provide alternative access to showers for people; lock dumpsters in non-work hours; increase patrols at Cubberley; tow unregistered vehicles; and discard unattended belongings. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF SECOND MINUTES Page 11 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price to recommend to the full Council: 1) that Staff develop a program at a one- time cost not to exceed $150,000 to deal with homeless issues discussed tonight; 2) that Staff provide the details of the program as soon as complete, or as soon as possible thereafter, for consideration and approval by the Council; 3) approval of Recommendation Number 2, page 7 of the Staff Report, “funding match with Santa Clara County for housing subsidies;” and 4) approve an Ordinance (Attachment A) that establishes hours of public access to the Cubberley Community Center and other City of Palo Alto Community Facilities as sunrise to 10:30 P.M. daily. Council Member Klein believed homeless people had the same rights as other citizens; however, no one had the right to turn Cubberley Community Center into a homeless shelter. Limited data indicated the increased number of homeless people at Cubberley did not come from Palo Alto. The City alone was not able to solve the problem of homelessness. Delaying City action did not help the adjacent neighbors or increase the likelihood of a solution being identified in a short time. The Cubberley needs assessment referred to lease negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Agencies other than the City had the primary obligation to fund programs for homelessness. He did not expect City funding to continue annually. If the Committee approved the Motion, then the Council needed to receive the recommendation in late August or early September 2013. Ms. Antil reported a first reading of the Ordinance was on August 19, 2013; however, a program and any details of a program were not going to be drafted that quickly. Council Member Klein noted an Ordinance would become effective 30 days after a second reading and approval. Mr. Betts inquired whether the $150,000 amount would be a one-time expense. Council Member Klein answered yes. Chair Kniss requested Council Member Klein comment on the shower closure at Cubberley. Council Member Klein agreed with Staff that Cubberley shower facilities would close as of August 31, 2013. Mr. Betts understood the showers would close as of August 31, 2013. MINUTES Page 12 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Council Member Klein explained that many suggestions from the adjacent neighbors would become effective with passage of the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Price viewed the homeless problem as a public health, safety, and welfare issue for the individuals and facility users. Determining new ways to leverage funding was critical. The Motion provided opportunities to develop sophisticated strategies. Public resources for homelessness were insufficient. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER request that Staff bring forward to Policy and Services Committee a discussion of the utilization of the Community Health and Safety component of the Development Agreement with Stanford University Medical Center, including a discussion of health services to individuals most at risk including members of the homeless community. Council Member Price inquired whether Stanford University was merely interested in participating or proposed participating in a homeless program. Nadia Richardson, Downtown Streets Team was negotiating a contract with all hospitals in the County with respect to homeless people. Council Member Price assumed homeless people would be included in the program discussions. Ms. Zelkha met with members of the unhoused community to share ideas. The task force wanted to hold an interagency discussion. Ms. Richardson reported the County had slots reserved for homeless men and women to share their experiences. Chair Kniss noted the County continued to work on the homeless problem. One of the Council's responsibilities was to protect the community. The Motion was a balancing act between the neighbors and the homeless population. Mr. Bains invited homeless people to shelter and shower at We Hope. Other solutions were presented. The Opportunity Center was a regional agency. Council Member Holman did not support the Motion because Staff, rather than the HRC were to develop a program. Of the $150,000 provided in the Motion, $100,000 was to be used to match County funds to provide housing for ten people. MINUTES Page 13 of 13 Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting Final Minutes: 08/13/13 Ms. Van Der Zwaag reiterated that funding for the HOT Team was $150,000, and the County proposal for housing was $50,000 for two years. Council Member Holman inquired whether the $150,000 stated in the Motion would fund both the HOT Program and the County program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated one year of funding for the HOT Team was $150,000, and $50,000 per year, with a two-year request for funding was needed for the County to commit to provide the subsidy. Council Member Holman did not feel the Motion clearly stated the funding aspect. Council Member Klein indicated the first and second parts of the Motion covered the HOT Program and the County subsidy program. Council Member Holman clarified that the funding commitment was $250,000. The proposed Ordinance did not solve some issues raised by neighbors. Chair Kniss inquired whether the first reading of the Ordinance would be placed on the Council Agenda for August 19, 2013. The next scheduled Council meeting after August 19, 2013 was September 9, 2013. She requested Staff to consider placing the second reading on a Special Meeting Agenda, in case one was scheduled before the end of August. Ms. Antil was able to present the Ordinance for a first reading on August 19, 2013. A draft program was to be presented to the Council at a later time. Molly Stump, City Attorney noted 11 days were required between the first and second readings of an Ordinance; therefore, a second reading occurred at a Special Meeting on August 30, 2013, or in the first week of September, or at the Regular Meeting scheduled for September 9, 2013. MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Holman no EXCERPT FROM CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2013 13. Recommendation for One-Time Additional Allocation in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years in Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Senior Program Manager, reported on August 13, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee discussed additional expenditures for homeless services. The Committee discussed approaches to address homeless issues Citywide with special consideration of resolving issues at Cubberley Community Center. At the Policy and Services Committee meeting, Staff presented two alternatives for a multi-agency and service provider partnership. The first option was the concept of a homeless outreach team utilizing a cross- functional group of providers to move homeless people into housing. The second option was a funding match for housing subsidies provided by the County of Santa Clara (County) to support intensive case management. Service providers commented that an outreach team was only one approach to addressing homelessness, and was meant to open a multi-agency dialog on homelessness. A local organization offered to convene a newly formed Homeless Services Task Force to bring forth other ideas to the Council. The Policy and Services Committee recommended that the full Council consider an investment in the creation of a multi-agency homeless outreach program not to exceed $250,000, and requested Staff return with a specific plan to address the issue. Staff worked with the Homeless Services Task Force and the County to present a recommendation for the Council's consideration. The County would provide housing funds to assist individuals who had contact with the criminal justice system, had a high chance of recidivism, significantly impacted County, State or local resources and were currently homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. These factors were required by the County's funding source for housing subsidies. Local service providers informed Staff that the guidelines would not be a barrier to assist many of their clients. The County subsidies could be utilized for permanent support of housing or long-term transitional housing. With permanent support, an individual would receive an ongoing rental subsidy, and an intensive case manager would assist the individual to obtain services to remain housed. Long-term transitional housing most often ended after a two-year period and was targeted to individuals who needed assistance in leaving the streets. With the assistance of a housing subsidy and an intensive case manager, it was hoped individuals would transfer from the subsidy to a non-subsidized unit. Staff expected to provide assistance to 20 individuals. The County budgeted $518,000 for subsidies and administration costs over the next 24 months. An intensive case manager would work with an individual to ensure the client's needs were met in a variety of contexts. The County would require the City to utilize a case management agency that was part or would agree to be part of the Care Coordination Project of the Housing 1000 Campaign. The Care Coordination Project was developed to ensure the effectiveness of services for the homeless population by coordinating and monitoring intensive case management services. The Care Coordination Project required case management agencies establish data collection and performance standards and required weekly meetings of all case managers. The Project allowed the City to access security deposits, move-in assistance, flexible housing funds and potentially other housing resources for chronically homeless clients. InnVision Shelter Network, Downtown Streets Team and Momentum for Mental Health were designated as part of the Care Coordination Project. Staff recommended the City enter into an agreement with the County's Mental Health Department to release the Request for Proposal (RFP) and provide oversight of the intensive case management agencies. The City would retain the ability to create and oversee the referral process. The City and the County would oversee the project. Experts indicated that access to housing was the most important aspect of solving homelessness. The $250,000 one-time investment would leverage County funds to support and house 20 individuals. Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team, indicated the closing of Cubberley facilities and the impending vehicle habitation ban created a short-term crisis. Case managers would work on successful housing retention strategies so that clients would remain in housing. The Homeless Services Task Force planned to continue to develop a long-term plan for the rest of the homeless and low-income individuals in the community. Cybele appreciated the Homeless Services Task Force's efforts. She supported Mr. Richardson's request for additional time to create long-term strategies. Norman Carroll received housing through County homeless programs and helped others receive housing. Homeless programs needed to be implemented properly. The proposed funding amount was insufficient. Edie Keating questioned actions that would be taken at the end of two years. The proposal would not house the entire homeless population in Palo Alto. Stephanie Munoz agreed with Ms. Keating's comments. The City's planning was inadequate in that it did not consider housing for workers. Another issue for the homeless population was mental illness. Council Member Price indicated one highlight of the homeless discussion was the opportunity to learn about homelessness. Clearly a comprehensive approach was needed. Collaboration and communication would be critical to achieving meaningful outcomes. Partnerships in seeking funds was also important. With respect to the Care Coordination Project, the City would be pushing the onus toward the County in terms of coordinating an RFP for services. She inquired about periodic updates to the Council regarding interim outcomes and performance measures. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated City Staff would be involved in choosing the agencies to provide services and including specific items related to Palo Alto in the RFP. The RFP could contain reporting structures to Staff and the Council. The City's oversight of service providers should not be an issue. Ky Le, Director of Homeless Systems for the County of Santa Clara, explained that the Care Coordination Project identified several outcome measures, primarily related to retention of housing, days to housing, and connection to supplemental security and to health services. Those metrics could be incorporated into the RFP and reported to City Staff. Council Member Price asked if the process would consider outside peer review of RFPs. Mr. Le envisioned that the panel would include himself, City Staff, and perhaps other community experts. Council Member Price suggested the panel include experts from outside the county to provide fresh insight. Mr. Le indicated the County could attempt to accommodate that request from the Council. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Price to approve a one- time City allocation of $250,000 to be disbursed over two years for support of its homeless outreach and placement plan and that the Fiscal Year 2014 allocation in the amount of $125,000 is authorized to be paid from the City Council Contingency due to the urgency of providing this service. The homeless outreach and placement plan will be comprised of intensive case management in connection with housing subsidies for the homeless to be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County). Further, the City Council directs staff to bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance in November to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and include funding of the Fiscal Year 2015 allocation in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. Council Member Kniss felt County involvement was important. Inherent within the Motion was working with the County to provide housing subsidies. The funding source for the allocation would be the Council Contingency Fund. The program would be different from previous efforts and would involve many groups. Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Kniss' comments. The collaboration component was critical and could not be accomplished by the City alone. The Council was making a commitment for two years, and future debate would include the issue of sustainable funding. Council Member Schmid believed this was a follow-up discussion to the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance and closure of community centers. He supported spending $250,000 for the model of outreach teams. His calculations indicated $1,250 would be available to each individual for a monthly rent voucher. However, low-income housing was in short supply in Palo Alto. He asked where individuals would find low-income housing. The proposed program would not be a solution to the homeless problem, and the Council could not determine a solution without working with the County. Perhaps the Council should direct the Homeless Services Task Force to examine County programs to determine reasons for the lack of shelters. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to remove the words “one-time,” changing the Motion to read “…to approve a City allocation of $250,000…” Council Member Kniss was comfortable with the allocation being one time, because the Council agreed it would be a pilot program. Council Member Schmid believed removing "one-time" would indicate the Council's good faith efforts to resolve the homeless issue. Council Member Holman supported removing "one-time" because it provided no harm, and the message was more open and clear. She did not want to send the message that the Council would only provide an allocation of $250,000. Council Member Burt felt the Council's intentions were to allocate $250,000 over two years at the present time, and in the future the Council would determine an ongoing commitment. He preferred to remove "one-time." Council Member Klein noted "one-time" was included in the recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee. By removing it, the Council was indicating that the program would continue. Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Klein. The Council wanted to see the results of the program before considering additional funding. Including "one-time" placed pressure on stakeholders to consider other funding models. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Burt, Holman, Schmid yes, Scharff Absent Council Member Holman inquired whether the Homeless Services Task Force would continue its efforts. Ms. Van Der Zwaag replied yes. Council Member Holman asked why the Sunnyvale Armory was closing. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported a long-term housing project would be implemented at the site. Mr. Le noted that the Cold Weather Shelter Program would operate in 2013. Two affordable housing projects would be developed on the site of the Sunnyvale Armory. Council Member Holman inquired about the number of housing units that would be developed at the site. Mr. Le indicated both projects would provide 118-120 units. The Sunnyvale Armory's current capacity was 125 beds. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated a group was attempting to find other locations for the shelter program. Council Member Holman requested an update regarding the possibility of expanding the Hotel de Zink Program. She suggested the Homeless Services Task Force report twice a year to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to inform the Council and the public and to monitor the homeless program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag agreed that the Homeless Services Task Force could report to the HRC; however, the Homeless Services Task Force would not oversee the homeless program. Council Member Holman intended for Staff to report on services being provided through the homeless program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag would provide the recommendation to the Homeless Services Task Force. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to delete “Further, the City Council directs staff to bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance in November to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and include funding of the Fiscal Year 2015 allocation in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget.” Vice Mayor Shepherd felt use of the Council Contingency Fund was appropriate. Council Member Kniss indicated use of Council Contingency Funds provided a good message. Council Member Klein explained that the Council Contingency Fund was used to fund an initiative that was not included in the Budget. The homeless program fit that category. He was unsure whether Council Member Kniss included the language in the Motion. Council Member Kniss did not include it. Council Member Price seconded the Motion as written. Council Member Klein believed Staff's suggestion was consistent and appropriate with the budgetary scheme; however, he did not understand why it was included in the Motion. Unused monies in the Council Contingency Fund reverted to the reserves. Council Member Holman understood Council Member Klein to say the language should not have been included in Staff's recommendation, and asked if he agreed with the Amendment to delete the language. Council Member Klein responded yes, but for different reasons. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Council Member Berman felt this was a good short-term program. It was important for the Council to monitor the program to determine its success. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent City of Palo Alto (ID # 4526) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Park Improvement Ordinance for Scott Park Title: Recommendation to Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Design of the Scott Park Capital Improvement Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Parks and Recreation Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for the design of Scott Park Capital Improvement Project (Attachment B). Executive Summary The Scott Park Capital Improvement Project Program (CIP) was developed to repair some of the existing park amenities at Scott Park. Some community members requested that a bocce ball court should be added to the design of the park. While some community members felt strongly that a bocce ball court should be included at Scott Park, others felt that it would be inappropriate. Staff conducted two public meetings, posted an online survey, and discussed the project at three Parks and Recreation Commission meetings. On January 21, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted 7:0 to recommend that Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the design improvements at Scott Park. Background The Scott Park CIP approved $100,000 for repairs to some of the existing features at Scott Park. It included replacing the old picnic tables, repairing cracked and uplifted pavement on the basketball court, and replacing the broken playground equipment and playground surfacing. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A public meeting was held on August 28, 2012. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the meeting. Draft plans for the park improvements were shared with the participants. The design received general support from all the participants; however, a group of people expressed a strong interest in adding a bocce ball court to the park. In the weeks following the public meeting, public interest in adding a bocce court to Scott Park increased. Staff solicited input from bocce stakeholders, visited a number of different parks that have bocce courts to look at successful designs, and worked with our contract landscape designer to add a bocce court to the Scott Park design. The Scott Park design, notes from the public meeting, and a survey (to collect input on the park design) were posted on the City website on July 30, 2013. Information about the design and survey were shared with the public by sending post card mailers, emailing stakeholders, and including the notification in the Mayor’s newsletter, which has 7,500 subscribers. The survey was successful both in terms of increasing public outreach (93 people responded to the survey), and in terms of providing insight on how the community feels about bocce at Scott Park. The survey results indicate that 85.4% of the 93 people who responded to the survey support the addition of bocce ball at Scott Park. Eleven people did not support including bocce at Scott Park. There were also 64 comments provided in the survey. The comments ranged in topic greatly. The majority vocalized support for the design and bocce, and some were adamant against including bocce, or anything that might increase the noise at the park. Staff brought a PIO for the improvements to Scott Park to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) on August 27, 2013 (Attachment C). The Commission asked staff to conduct additional public outreach. The Commission suggested amending the design to incorporate a sand play element, and to include bike racks. Two members of the Commission formed an Ad Hoc Committee, and worked with staff to set up another public meeting to collect the public’s feedback on the design. Staff hosted a public meeting on November 21, 2013. There were approximately 13 participants at the meeting. City Landscape Architect Peter Jensen shared a revised design. The group came to consensus around several elements of the design. However, there was no consensus regarding including bocce into the design. Some of the comments from the public meeting against including bocce at Scott Park: -There should only be one court (or noise generating activity) at Scott Park - bocce or basketball. City of Palo Alto Page 3 -A bocce court will contribute too much noise, loss of green space, and cause parking problems. Some of the comments from the public meeting in favor of including bocce at Scott Park: -Bocce is a quiet activity that is a great for people of all ages, and it fits well at Scott Park. -Parks are for recreation, activity, and enjoyment. People who choose to live near parks need to anticipate that parks are going to be used for recreational activities. People who play basketball walk to the park; and the same will be true of bocce. On December 10, 2013, staff and the Ad Hoc Committee (Commissioners Hetterly and Reckdahl) updated the Commission on the outcome of the November 21, 2013 public meeting on Scott Park. The Ad Hoc Committee explained that, while there are some community members who are against it, there seems to be more community support for including a bocce court at this park. The Committee felt that waiting to build a bocce ball court until the Parks Master Plan is complete isn’t prudent for this particular situation because the plan will probably not be completed for two years. Furthermore, having a pilot bocce court at Scott Park will help inform the Parks Master Plan about whether bocce is a needed amenity at other parks. The Ad Hoc Committee explained that the added noise from bocce isn’t likely to be significant because generally bocce is a quiet activity. Other Commissioners stated that staff implemented as many of the different stakeholders’ comments as possible into the design. Commissioners also liked that the design created more useable turf area which will allow for other activities, and that the inclusion of bocce creates a park with multi-generational recreational opportunities. Discussion The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the Council’s adoption of the Park Improvement Ordinance for the design improvements at Scott Park at its January 21, 2014 meeting by a vote of 7:0. The minutes of the January 21, 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting are attached for reference (Attachment D). The Commissioners noted that they were very happy with the final design. They stated that the outreach for this project was good. One Commissioner stated that bocce is a perfect fit for this neighborhood park. The Commission sympathized with the residents that oppose the inclusion of bocce, but felt that it was a good process that led to a great design. City of Palo Alto Page 4 If the Council approves the PIO, staff will purchase two sets of bocce balls and printed instructions on how to play bocce, and will have them available for people to check-out with a library card at the City’s Downtown Library. Staff will also install signage at the Park explaining that bocce balls can be checked out at the library. Resource Impact The Scott Park CIP is funded for $100,000. Additional funding, approximately $15,000 for this project will also come from an existing CIP for Park amenities. Policy Implications This project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan: POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. POLICY L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. PROGRAM L-70: Study the potential for landscaping or park furniture that would promote neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places and centers of neighborhood activity. POLICY C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. New facilities should be designed to allow for changing community needs. Flexibility is essential, both in the initial layout of the space and in its ongoing use. The pressure to use community facilities in more varied and intense ways may translate into requests for longer operating hours, more diverse programs, and more frequent activities. Such demands will require better coordination of services, modification and expansion of facilities to allow more users, program changes (and associated changes in space requirements), and higher maintenance costs. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 5 This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A- ORDN Scott Park park improvement ordinance 8-21- (PDF) Attachment B -Scott Park design (PDF) Attachment C - Parks and Recreations Commission Scott Park PIO 8-13-13 report (PDF) Attachment D - PARC Scott park excerpt (PDF) 1 | Page TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT:COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: AUGUST 27, 2013 SUBJECT: PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR SCOTT PARK DESIGN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) (Attachment A) for the design of Scott Park Capital Improvement Project (CIP). BACKGROUND The Scott Park CIP approved $100,000 in 2012 for repairing some of the existing features at Scott Park. It included replacing the old picnic tables, repairing cracked and uplifted pavement on the basketball court, and replacing the broken playground equipment and playground surfacing. A public meeting was held on Tuesday August 28th, 2012. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the meeting. Draft plans for the park improvements were shared with the participants. The design received general support from all the participants; however there was a group of people who expressed a strong interest in adding a bocce ball court to the park. In the weeks following the public meeting, public interest in adding a bocce court to Scott Park increased. Community Services staff were contacted by Council Member Burt and asked to look into options for adding bocce because so many people were contacting him about wanting bocce at this site. DISCUSSION Staff solicited input from bocce stakeholders, visited a number of different parks that have bocce courts to look at successful designs, and worked with our contract landscape designer to add a bocce court to the Scott Park design. The Scott Park design (Attachment B), notes from the public meeting, and a survey (to collect input on the park design) were posted on the City website on July 30, 2013. Information about the design and survey were shared with the public by sending post card mailers, emailing stakeholders, and including the notification in the Mayor’s newsletter, which has 7,500 2 | Page subscribers. The survey was successful both in terms of increasing public outreach (93 people responded to the survey), and in terms of providing insight on how the community feels about bocce at Scott Park. The survey results (Attachment C) indicate that 85.4% of the 93 people who responded to the survey support the addition of bocce ball at Scott Park. There were 11 people who said that they didn’t support bocce at Scott Park (though one of the comments said his “no” vote was predicated on whether a tree needed to be removed to construct the bocce court, and that if it didn’t require a tree removal he would vote to support bocce. This project will not remove any trees from the Scott Park).There were also 64 comments provided in the survey. The comments ranged in topics greatly. The majority vocalized support for the design and bocce, and some were adamant against including bocce, or anything that might increase the noise at the park. TIMEFRAME: If the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that City Council approve the PIO for the improvements at Scott Park, staff will submit a staff report and PIO to Council in approximately one month. If Council approves the PIO, the Ordinance will become effective 30 days after the second reading at Council. RESOURCE IMPACT The Scott Park CIP has $100,000 allocated for the improvements. The bocce court is roughly estimated to cost $20,000. The total design cost, including the bocce court, is estimated to cost $115,000. Staff will utilize the Park Benches, Signs, and Amenities CIP to pay for the difference. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan: POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. POLICY L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. PROGRAM L-70: Study the potential for landscaping or park furniture that would promote neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places and centers of neighborhood activity. POLICY C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. New facilities should be designed to allow for changing community needs. Flexibility is essential, both in the initial layout of the space and in its on- going use. The pressure to use community facilities in more varied and intense ways may translate into requests for longer operating hours, more diverse programs, and more frequent activities. Such demands will require better coordination of services, modification and expansion of facilities to allow more users, program changes (and associated changes in space requirements), and higher maintenance costs. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is not subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) Attachment B: Scott Park Design Attachment C: Online Survey Results PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________ DAREN ANDERSON Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community Services Department SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN CO V E R S H E E T L0.0 S C O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Prepared for City of Palo Alto, CA Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division June 24, 2013 SHEET INDEX: L0.0 COVER SHEET L1.0 DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL PLAN L2.0 LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN L3.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L4.0 PLANTING PLAN L5.0 DETAILS L6.0 DETAILS L7.0 PLANTING / IRRIGATION DETAILS L8.0 BOCCI COURT DETAILS CONTACT: JEANETTE SERNA, Program Assistant Open Space, Parks and Golf Division (650)496-5916 jeanette.serna@cityofpaloalto.org EDDIE CHAU, Landscape Architect Eddie Chau Design (510)525-1913 eddie@echaudesign.com SITE MAP Scott St. between Channing Ave. and Addison Ave. BID SET 6/24/13 EX. CONCRETE TO REMAIN DEMOLITION NOTES: 1.FIELD VERIFY WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EXTENT OF ALL ITEMS TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED. 2.REMOVE ALL DEMOLITION DEBRIS, CONCRETE, WOOD, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS FROM SITE. 3.PROTECT ALL TREES AND PLANT MATERIALS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE. REPLACE ALL DAMAED PLANT MATERIAL AT CONTRACTOR COST. 4.RAKE SOIL SMOOTH AFTER DEMOLITION. 5.PROTECT TREES BY ERECTING TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE BARRIER AROUND THEM. BARRIER SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF CONTRUCTION. THE AREA AROUND THE TREES SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STAGING OF MATERIALS OF ANY KIND. COMPACTION OF ROOT SYSTEM WILL DAMAGE TREES. 6.VERIFY LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. CLEARLY MARK PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ZONES AND CLOSED CONSTRUCTION AREAS WITH BARRIERS, FENCING, CONSTRUCTION TAPE, AND/OR SIGNAGE. REVIEW CONSTRUCTION CIRCULATION WITH CITY AND LANDSCAPE ARCH. CH A N N I N G A V E . SC O T T S T . ALL TREES TO REMAIN EX. LAWN TO REMAIN EX. CONCRETE PATHS TO REMAIN EX. FOUNTAIN AND IRRIGATION EQUIP TO REMAIN REMOVE EX. TABLES AND BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES REMOVE EX. ASPHALT RELOCATE (2) EX. TRASH RELOCATE (2) EX. BENCHES REMOVE EX. SPRING TOY AND SWING REMOVE EX. SAND REMOVE EX. TRASH RECEPTACLE EX. BENCH TO REMAIN RELOCATE EX. BENCH REMOVE CONCRETE. VERIFY IN FIELD W/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. REMOVE EX. BASKETBALL GOAL REMOVE EX. BOLLARDS (4) MARK THIS EDGE FOR NEW CONCRETE LAYOUT. MARK THIS EDGE FOR NEW CONCRETE LAYOUT. TREE PROTECTION CHAIN LINK FENCING TREE PROTECTION CHAIN LINK FENCING NOTE: CONSULT WITH CITY PARK STAFF PRIOR TO DEMOLITION IN THIS AREA. SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN DE M O L I T I O N A N D RE M O V A L P L A N L1.0 1/8" = 1'-0" 6/24/13 FEET 0 8' 10' 20' N BID SET CH A N N I N G A V E . SC O T T S T . 4'-0" 20 ' - 9 " 6'-6" 8' - 2 " 7' - 8 " 8' - 2 " AP P R O X . BASKETBALL GOAL AND STRIPING (GOAL TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY) BOLLARDS RELOCATED RECYCLING/TRASH RELOCATED BENCH EX. WATER FOUNTAIN EX. LAWN PLAY SURFACE AND EDGEPICNIC TABLES, SURFACE MOUNTED REALIGNED BENCH CONCRETE AND PAVERS P.A. P.A. EX. OAK EX. REDWOODS 25'-0" CONCRETE PAD AND BIKE RACK RECYCLING AND TRASH RECEPTACLE P.A. TRASH RECEPTACLE TRUNCATED DOMES EX. BENCH EX. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND SIGN 6'-0" 8' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " P.A. TODDLER SWING FALL ZONE 17' X 21'-9" C.L. PAVING LAYOUT 13'-0" 13 ' - 0 " RELOCATED BENCH W/ FOOTING STEEL EDGING APPROX. AP P R O X . CONCRETE @ COURT EX. CONCRETE CONST. JT. (TYP) EX. MAIN EDGE OF CONCRETE EQ EX. EDGE AND EXPANSION JOINTS EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ LAYOUT NOTES: 1.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FINISH FACE OF WALL OR SIMILAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.REPORT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. WORK DIRECTLY WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/OR CITY TO RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES. 3.READJUST OR REPLACE LAWN SPRINKER HEADS AROUND NEW EDGE OF CONCRETE AT BASKETBALL COURT. 4.REPAIR AND RESOD DISTURBED LAWN AREAS. 5.PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION FENCING AROUND EXISTING TREES AT CONSTRUCTION AREAS. P.A. EQ LEGEND: ALIGN PLANTING AREA EQUAL P.A. EX. SIDEWALK 8' - 4 " 7' - 0 " 7'-0" 1% SLOPE 1% SLOPE 1 L6.0 2 L6.0 PARKING AND WHEEL STOPS 4 L6.0 4 L5.0 2 L5.0 1 L5.0 6 L5.0 L5.0 L5.0 TODDLER SWING 5 L5.0 3 L5.0 6'-6" 5' - 6 " 9 8 3 L6.0 SITE FURNISHINGS SCHEDULE: QTY. TYPE MANUF./MODEL NO. 1 PICNIC TABLE DUMOR INC. (ACCESSIBLE)100-68PL-S-2, SURFACE MOUNTED 1 PICNIC TABLE DUMOR INC. 100-60PL-S-2, SURFACE MOUNTED 1 BIKE RACK DUMOR INC. 83 SERIES, S-1, BLACK, EMBEDDED 1 RECYCLING DUMOR, INC. RECEPTACLE 148-32-RC-0091, BLACK 2 TRASH RECEPTACLE DUMOR INC. 148-32-FTO, BLACK 1 TODDLER SWING LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. NO. 117962, YELLOW 1 PLAY SURFACE SURFACE AMERICA POURED IN PLACE WITH ALIPHATIC BINDER, STANDARD SOLID COLORS 50% SKY BLUE, 50% EGG SHELL BLEND 2 BOLLARD/BIKE RACK DUMOR INC. 401-36-2, BLACK, EMBEDDED 2 REMOVABLE BOLLARDS DUMOR INC. 400-36/S-1SL, BLACK, WITH SLEEVES 1% SLOPE P.A. PAVERS IN SAND L5.0 7 (E) TREES EX. MAIN EDGE OF CONCRETE ADJUST LAWN SPRINKLER HEADS AND RESOD DISTURBED LAWN AREAS. SEE LAYOUT NOTES. SKY BLUE/EGG SHELL COLOR BLEND, 50/50 (APPROX. 3'X5') EX. LAWN BOCCI COURT 12'X55' INTERIOR DIMENSION 10" CONC. MOW STRIP EX. SIDEWALK 6"W x 8" HT. CONC. CURB EX. SIDEWALK EDGE GATE EX. SIDEWALK EDGE CONCRETE2 L5.0 EX. SIDEWALK EDGE 6'-0" COMPOSITE WOOD AT INTERIOR FACE OF COURT WALLS SEE SHT L8 SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN 6/24/13 L2.0 1/8" = 1'-0" LA Y O U T P L A N FEET 0 8' 10' 20' N SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN FEET 0 8' 10' 20' N IRRIGATION NOTES: 1.LOCATIONS OF IRRIGATION LINES, VALVES, HEADS, AND ALL OTHER RELATED IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY, 2.MAINLINE IS TO BURIED A MINIMUM OF 36", LATERAL LINES ARE TO BE BURIED A MINIMUM OF 18". 3.ALL IRRIGATION PIPE UNDER PAVEMENT TO BE PLACED IN A SLEEVE TWO SIZES LARGER THAN THE PIPE BEING SLEEVED, OR THE COMBINED DIAMETERS OF THE PIPES BEING SLEEVED. 4.RADIUS ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE ON ALL HEADS FOR OPTIMUM COVERAGE AND MINIMIZE OVERSPRAY ONTO PAVED SURFACES. 5.IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT 35-45 PSI DOWNSTREAM OF THE PRESSURE REGULATOR. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT SUFFICIENT PRESSURE IS AVAILABLE AT THE SOURCE FOR THE SYSTEM TO OPERATE AS DESIGNED AT THE SPECIFIED PRESSURE. 6.REPLACE ALL BROKEN OR DESTROYED IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. C B C LEGEND: SYMBOL MODEL DESCRIPTION POP-UP BUBBLER AT SHRUB, ONE PER PLANT REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, 1" SIZE (CONNECT TO EXISTING STUB-OUTS) EXISTING CONTROLLER EXISTING BACKFLOW PREVENTER SLEEVE LATERAL LINE B NOTE: CONNECT SHRUB BUBBLER LINE TO SHRUB VALVE. CONNECT TREE POP-UP HEAD LINE TO TREE VALVE. RAINBIRD PESB VALVE 100-PESB RAINBIRD SERIES 1800 POP-UP W/HUNTER BUBBLER POP-UP BUBBLER AT TREES, ONE PER TREE RAINBIRD SERIES 1800 POP-UP W/HUNTER BUBBLER CH A N N I N G A V E . SC O T T S T . 6/24/13 L3.0 1/8" = 1'-0" IR R I G A T I O N P L A N BID SET SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN CH A N N I N G A V E . SC O T T S T . SOL HET MYR CAL THY VUL SOL HET ERI FAS PYR CAL 3 3 3 1 5 THY VUL5 BARK MULCH AREA PLANT LIST: QTY SIZE BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME TREES: 1 24"BOX PYRUS CALLERYANA 'FAURIERI'DWARF CALLERY PEAR SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS: 3 1 GAL ERIGONUM FASCICULATUM CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT 3 5 GAL MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 8 1 GAL SOLLYA HETEROPHYLLA AUSTRALIAN BLUEBELL CREEPER 10 1 GAL THYMUS VULGARIS COMMON THYME PLANT NOTES: 1.LAYOUT IN ADVANCE ALL PLANT MATERIAL PER PLANTING PLAN. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLANTING. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF PLANTING DATES. 2.AMENDMENT: DIESTEL STRUCTURED COMPOST AND VERMI GREEN COMPOST 50/50 RATIO, 3.75 CUBIC FEET PER 1000 SF. SOURCE: LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, REDWOOD CITY (650)364-1730 3.PLANTING HOLES FOR TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE TWICE ROOTBALL WIDTH AND EQUAL TO ROOTBALL DEPTH. ALL 15G AND LARGER PLANTS TO BE PLANTED ON NATIVE SOI, EXCEPT WHERE PLANTING IN FILL. 4.FOR TOP OF ROOTBALLS: PLANT ALL 1 AND 5 GALLON CANS 1/2" ABOVE THE GROUND. PLANT ALL 15 GALLONS, 2" ABOVE THE GROUND. PLANT ALL 24" BOX TREES AND LARGER , 4" ABOVE THE GROUND. BRING MULCH AND SOIL AMENDMENT AROUND AND OVER EXPOSED ROOT BALL. KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM BASE OF TRUNKS AND STEMS. 5.FERTILIZER: FERTILIZE WITH AGRIFORM TABLETS (20-10-5). USE ONE TABLET FOR ONE GALLON, THREE TABLETS FOR FIVE GALLON, FIVE TABLETS FOR 15 GALLON, EIGHT TABLETS FOR 24" BOX, TWELVE TABLETS FOR 36" BOX PLANTS. (GLACIAL ROCK DUST MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FERTILIZER TABLETS. APPLY AT SUPPLIER RECOMMENDED RATES.) 6.MULCH: APPLY 1/4" FIR CHIP MULCH OVER ALL SHRUB AND GROUND COVER AREAS TO A DEPTH OF TWO INCHES. PULL BARK 2-3" AWAY FROM BASE OF ALL PLANTS. 7.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL REPLACE ALL DEAD PLANTS AND PLANTS NOT IN VIGOROUS CONDITION AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PLANTS USED FOR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE SPECIFIED AND PLANTED AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. ALL REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS SHALL BE DONE BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 8.PROVIDE PLANT GUARANTEE PROPOSAL WITH BID. (MINIMUM 6 MONTHS FOR PLANTS UP TO 15 GALLON, 1 YEAR FOR 24" BOX OR LARGER. 9.RESOD ALL DISTURBED LAWN AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. BARK MULCH AREA 5 RESOD ALL DISTURBED LAWN AREAS. READJUST OR RELOCATE SPRINKLER HEADS AROUND NEW BASKETBALL COURT . PL A N T I N G P L A N 6/24/13 1/8" = 1'-0" L4.0 FEET 0 8' 10' 20' N BID SET REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.com www.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A 6/24/13 CONCRETE TRUNCATED DOMES: STEPSTONE INC., 12X12, CHARCOAL #511 3/4" MORTAR CONCRETE, 4000 PSI, W/ #4 REBAR @ 14" O.C. CLASS II BASE COURSE, 95% COMPACTION COMPACTED SUBGRADE 5" 5" CONCRETE, 4000 PSI, W/ #3 REBAR @ 14" O.C., BROOM FINISH CLASS II BASE COURSE, 95% COMPACTION COMPACTED SUBGRADE 4" 5" PAVER BAND: McNEAR PAVERS, COBBLESTONE- TAN/BROWN SQUARES (5 1/2"x5 1/2") AND RECTANGLES (5 1/2"x8 1/4"), RANDOM PATTERN (30% SQUARES, 70% RECTANGLES) MORTAR EXISTING SIDEWALK CRUSHED STONE BASE, 95% COMPACTION, SEE MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2 1 / 2 " 5" NOTE: INSTALL SURFACING AND BASE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION AND SPECIFICATIONS. 1/2" MAX. ALL SIDES POURED IN PLACE RUBBER SURFACE, LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES INC.6" CONCRETE CURB W/ #4 REBAR, ROUNDED CORNERS 4" CLASS II BASE COURSE 95% COMPACTION CONCRETE, 4000 PSI, W/ #4 REBAR @ 14" O.C. , BROOM FINISH CLASS II BASE COURSE, 95% COMPACTION COMPACTED SUBGRADE 5" 5" CONTROL JOINT, 1/4 DEPTH OF CONCRETE CONTROL JOINT, 1/4 DEPTH OF CONCRETE BENCH LEG, SURFACE MOUNTED TO FOOTING CONCRETE FOOTING, APPROX. 8" DIA, 12" DEPTH EX. SIDEWALK EX. TREE 1" SAND SETTING BED McNEAR PAVERS, COBBLESTONE- TAN/BROWN SQUARES (5 1/2"x5 1/2") 8" 2' - 0 " 6' - 3 " 2' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 2'-6" MI N . MI N . FINISH GRADE CONCRETE, 3000 PSI MIN TODDLER SWING: LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC MODEL # 117962 NOTE: INSTALL AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION AND SPECIFICATIONS. CONCRETE, 4000 PSI, W/ #3 REBAR @ 14" O.C. CLASS II BASE COURSE, 95% COMPACTION COMPACTED SUBGRADE 4" DUMOR LOOP BIKE RACK, 83 SERIES EMBEDDED, BLACK NOTE: INSTALL BIKE RACK AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION AND SPECIFICATIONS. 4" 2'- 0 " 12" DIA 1'- 0 " 3/8" REBAR THROUGH HOLE 8' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 16'-0" 5 1/2" WIDE PAVER BAND, SQUARES AND RECTANGLES, RANDOM PATTERN SCORE JOINTS CONCRETE FIELD 6-0" EQ EQ EQ EQEQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ ACCESSIBLE TABLE, SURFACE MOUNTED TABLE, SURFACE MOUNTED 2 L5SEE 1 2 4 5 PAVING LAYOUT 1/4" = 1'-0" CONCRETE AND PAVERS 1 1/2" = 1'-0" TRUNCATED DOMES 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PLAY SURFACE AND EDGE 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 9 TODDLER SWING 3/4" = 1'-0" 3 CONCRETE @ COURT 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 6 RELOCATED BENCH W/ FOOTING 1 1/2" = 1'-0" DE T A I L S L5.0 8 CONCRETE PAD AND BIKE RACK 1" = 1'-0" 7 PAVERS IN SAND 1 1/2" = 1'-0" BID SET REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A 6/24/13 STEEL EDGING, 1/8" THICK, 4" DEPTH MIN. W/ STAKING (2) BOLLARDS W/ BIKE RACKS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE(2) BOLLARDS W/ SLEEVES FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE CONCRETECONCRETE SLEEVE COMPACTED BASE COURSE 3'- 0 " 3' - 0 " 6" 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 1'-6"1'-6" NOTE: INSTALL AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6' - 8 " BO T T O M O F S I G N T O F I N I S H G R A D E ACCESSIBLE SIGN, 12X18 GALVANIZED STEEL POST, APPROX. 2 1/4" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTING COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE FINISH GRADE 2' - 6 " 6" 9" 3/4" = 1'-0" BASKETBALL GOAL AND POST: BISON INC, MODEL # PR52 (PROVIDED BY CITY) FINISH GRADE 4' - 0 " 1'-0" MIN. CONCRETE FOOTING NOTE: 1. INSTALL GOAL AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 1/2" = 1'-0" 4'-0" 20 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " 3'-0"3'-0" 19'-0" 6' RA D I U S TO OUT S I D E ED G E 1'-0" TYP. 8"X12" TYP. 2"X8" TYP. NOTES: 1. ALL LINES TO BE PAINTED YELLOW. 2. ALL LINES TO BE 2" WIDE EXCEPT WHERE NOTED. 1'-6" 1'-6" 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS (2) EXISTING STRIPING TRUNCATED DOMES' 2'x5' ACCESSIBLE SIGN AND POST 3'-0" CURB 1/4" = 1'-0"LAWN 5 L5.0 2 BOLLARDS 3/4" = 1'-0" 1 BASKETBALL GOAL AND STRIPING 4 PARKING AND WHEEL STOPS 1/4" = 1'-0" DE T A I L S L6.0 3 STEEL EDGING 1 1/2" = 1'-0" BID SET REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A 6/24/13 BUBBLER AS SPECIFIED POP-UP W/ HUNTER RAINBIRD SERIES 1800 STREET ELLS NOTE: INSTALL BUBBLER WITHIN PLANT BASIN. HUNTER PCB BUBBLER TREE BASIN PVC SCHEDULE 80 NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) PVC SCHEDULE 40 90¡ ELL (SxT) OR TEE (SxSxT) PVC SCHEDULE 40 SPRINKLER/LINE IRRIGATION NOTE: REFER TO CONTRACT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION City of Palo Alto Standard (MODEL #VID1Y24 OR APPROVED EQUAL) NOTE: EACH VALVE TO INCLUDE RAINBIRD VALVE I.D. TAG INSTALL DRAIN ROCK 2" 3" 12" MIN. DEPTH 3" 1/2" PVC SCHEDULE 80 2" RECTANGULAR BLACK 14"x19" 0-1" RAINBIRD PESB SERIES PLASTIC VALVE BOX AND LID REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WATERPROOF WIRECONNECTOR (TYP) PVC SCHED. 40 45¡ ELL FINISH GRADE NIPPLE (TYP) PVC SCHEDULE 80 90¡ ELL (TxT) PVC SCHEDULE 80 T.O.E. NIPPLE (TYP) CONTROL WIRES IRRIGATION SUPPLYLINE (TYP) PVC SCHEDULE 80 TEE (SxSxS) OR 90 ELL (SxS) DRAIN ROCK MIN. BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX COMMON WIRE IRRIGATION SPRINKLERLINE NOTE: SET TOP OF BOX FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREAS. SPECIFIED MULCH, SEE PLANTING PLANS (SxS) KBI-BTU-V BALL VALVE PVC SCHEDULE 80 UNION (TxT) NOTE: REFER TO PROJECT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION City of Palo Alto Standard (2) UNTREATED LODGEPOLE PINE STAKES, 2" DIA. TRIM TO 1" MIN. ABOVE TIE, (TYP.) ROOTBALL (2) CORDED RUBBER TIES PLACED 6" MAX BELOW MAIN FORK INSTALLED WITH A TWIST AND SCREWED TO STAKE WITH (1) 1-1/2" GALV. SCREWS PER STAKE. TOP TIE TO BE SET MIN. SIX INCHES BELOW LOWEST LIMB WATERING BASIN AT EDGE OF ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE ROOTBALL, (TYP.) SURFACE AMENDED SOIL, SEE SPECIFICATIONS, (TYP.) SCARIFIED SURFACE, (TYP.) UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 1 1 TREES TO BE SET PLUMB. ALIGN TRUNKS WHEN PLANTED IN A LINE. 3 TIMES ROOTBALL DIAMETER 3" LAYER OF MULCH, EXCEPT OVER ROOTBALL, WHERE MULCH IS TO BE 1 1/2". HOLD 2" AWAY FROM PLANT STEM WEED FABRIC W/PINS AT 5' O.C. MAXIMUM SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 3"-4" ABOVE GRADE 3" LAYER OF MULCH, EXCEPT OVER ROOTBALL, WHERE MULCH IS TO BE 1 1/2". HOLD 2" AWAY FROM PLANT STEM WATERING BASIN AT EDGE OF ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE ROOTBALL, (TYP.) SURFACE AMENDED SOIL, SEE SPECIFICATIONS, (TYP.) SCARIFIED SURFACE, (TYP.) UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 1 1 TWICE ROOTBALL DIAMETER SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 2" ABOVE GRADE 1 SHRUB PLANTING 2 TREE PLANTING 3 TREE STAKING NTS L7.0 PL A N T I N G / I R R I G A T I O N D E T A I L S BID SET POP-UP BUBBLERS FOR TREES AND SHRUBS5 NTS REMOTE CONTROL VALVES NTS 5 NTS NTS REVISIONS:BY: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: 850 STANNAGE AVE. #4ALBANY, CA 94706 (510) 525-1913eddie@echaudesign.comwww.echaudesign.com EDDIE CHAU DESIGN SC O T T P A R K L A N D S C A P E Pa l o A l t o , C A 6/24/13 8" 6" 4" 4" 10" CONCRETE CURB WALL AND MOW STRIP W/ #3 @ 16" O.C., 1X6 GRAY, SQ. EDGE TREX BOARD FLATHEAD CONCRETE ANCHOR SCREWS (24" O.C.) AND GALV. WASHERS (MIN. 1/8" THICK) 1" WEEP HOLE @ 10' O.C., CUT BOARD AT HOLE DECOMPOSED GRANITE COURT SURFACE COMPACTED CLASS II BASE AGGREGATE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 5 3 / 4 " 2" 2" BOCCI COURT CURB WALLS SEAT WALLS 1X6 TREX EDGE AT BOTTOM OF CURB AND SEAT WALLS 4'-5 3/4" 1' - 0 " ALIGN ALIGN (2) STAINLESS STEEL DOOR LEVERS - MANUF: SCHLAGE CO. MODEL # S10D-JUP UNLOCKABLE, W/ DOOR AND STRIKE HARDWARE 3' - 3 " 3/ 4 " 3'-3" WIDTH OF GATE 4X4 GALVANIZED STEEL POSTS, 1/8" THICK W/ CLOSED TOP AND OPEN BOTTOM 1' - 6 " (2) WELD-ON STAINLESS STEEL 2-PIECE HINGES: MANUF: HARDWARE SOURCE MODEL NO. - SKU 602052, 5/8" DIA., 4" LENGTH OR APPROVED EQUAL. PERMANENTLY MOUNTED SEAT WALLS 2 1/2" X 2 1/2" X 1/8" THICK GALVANIZED TUBE STEEL GATE FRAME McNICHOLS CO. - GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED WIRE MESH, 4X4 OPENINGS, .148" WIRE DIA. WELD TO CENTER OF TUBE STEEL FRAME 1' - 6 " 4" MIN.. COMPACTED CLASS II AGG. CONCRETE FOOTING APPROX. 1/2" 4" OPEN BOTTOM AT POSTS NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR GATE, POSTS, AND DOOR HANDLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. POSTS TO BE GALVANIZED ON EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR. 4" OPENING FOR DOOR LATCH 4'-0 1/2" APPROX. 1/4" NOTE: ANCHOR SCREWS SET MINIMUM 1" EMBEDMENT INTO CONCRETE. 3' - 3 3 / 4 " FILTER FABRIC @ COURT 1 1/8"MIN. 1' - 6 " 1'-0" 5 3 / 4 " 1 1/8" 1/4" 4" 4'-0" APPROX. (VERIFY IN FIELD) 1' - 2 "8" 6" 1' - 0 " CONC. SEAT WALL W/ #4 @ 16" O.C., 1/2" CHAMFERED CORNERS 2" DECOMP. GRANITE COURT SURFACE 1X6 GRAY, SQ. EDGE TREX BOARD FLATHEAD CONCRETE ANCHOR SCREWS (24" O.C.) AND GALV. WASHERS (MIN. 1/8" THICK) NOTE: ANCHOR SCREWS SET MINIMUM 1" EMBEDMENT INTO CONCRETE. EXPANSION JOINT (3) DRAIN HOLES AT BOTTOM OF GATE GATE POST POST 6" 12'-0" CENTER LINE OF GATE AND COURT 4'-5 3/4" 13'-0" 6" EXPANSION JOINT SCORE JT. HINGES 2 L5 PAVING 2 L5 PAVING 4 L8 3 L8 INTERIOR DIMENSION PLAN VIEW AT GATE 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SEAT WALL 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 CURB WALL AND MOW STRIP 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2 GATE (VIEW FROM OUTSIDE OF COURT) 1 1/2" = 1'-0"4 L8.0 BID SET BO C C I C O U R T DE T A I L S Attachment C Wednesday, August 21, 2013 Powered by Vovici EFM www.vovici.com Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled Community Input Requested on Bocce Court Option at Scott Park. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 22 day period from Tuesday, July 30, 2013 to Wednesday, August 21, 2013. 93 completed responses were received to the survey during this time. Survey Results & Analysis Survey: Community Input Requested on Bocce Court Option at Scott Park Author: Filter: Responses Received: 93 1) Do you support the addition of a bocce ball court at Scott Park? 2) Please provide the zip code of where you live: Please provide the zip code of where you live: 94303 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301-2711 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94133 94303 94301 94306 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301-3330 94025 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301-2764 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94303 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 94301 3) Feel free to share your thoughts on the proposed Scott Park design: (On the same page that we host this survey will be the proposed design of the park.) Feel free to share your thoughts on the proposed Scott Park design: (On the same page that we host this survey will be the proposed design of the park.) It is a very thoughtful design. City staff did a great job of listening and responding to the needs of the residents. I also really like the idea of this survey. Not all of us are available to come to public meetings but we still want our voices heard! My family and I are very excited about playing bocce at Scott Park! Looks good. I'm glad there are 2 toddler swings, the basketball court, and the bocce ball court, as it addresses the mixed ages and interests of residents. We own 3 houses in the immediate area. I live around the corner from Scott Street Park and I am very excited about the bocce ball court. Peggy Woodworth 301 Addison Avenue I participated in the public meeting; and I'm very pleased with this design. I don't play bocce, but I think it will be a nice addition. It is a quiet activity that is in keeping with this beautiful little park. Please don't debate this forever... complete this project quickly! It will be a great additionand help bring neighbors together It would also be great to add additional play equipment, perhaps one targeted space-efficient use (a climbing wall, for instance). Would love to see the park updated. Basketball court gets used on occasion, but most of time that park is deserted. Think adding bocce is a great idea if the basketball hoop stays. The children's play area also needs updating (or removed as there is already a big play area in the next block. I love Scott Park and live right behind it. I think this would be a great addition to our neighborhood park. I vote YES! Was the bocce court supposed to be included in this plan? It does not appear anywhere on the drawings. I love Scott Park and live right behind it. I think this would be a great addition to our neighborhood park. I vote YES! My chief concern is the preservation of the existing crabapple tree in the center of the lawn. I cannot tell from your map whether or not the tree will be kept, and how much green space will be replaced by hardscape. If the plan can accommodate the *existing* tree, which gives pleasure to many and around which the park pivots, I will change my vote to yes. Other wise, I vote no. A great neighborhood idea. Thank you! M L Boyd I think a bocce court would be fairly low-cost installation and maintenance and might fit in the existing grass area; this would not be disruptive to the current layout or to other park activities. We love Bocce and are excited to see Scott Park put to good use! Scott Park strikes me as currently under-utilised - it is hidden away and quite small. The addition of a bocce ball pit would be a good addition to make the park more usable, without taking away the tranquil aspect, which is probably important for the locals. Bocce court would be really fun.!! One additional concern: Once Scott Park is done, there will be an increase child pedestrian/bike traffic across the already dangerous Channing crosswalk (that leads to Heritage Park) at the NE edge of the park. I think the city should put in those asphalt-mounted, flashing crossing lights on the road with motion sensors at both sides to alert traffic on Channing of a pedestrian. I've seen many cases of cars speeding through the crosswalk unaware - and it can be difficult to see if cars are parked near the crosswalk. My only reservation about adding a bocce ball court is that not many people have the equipment to play the game. Will there be sufficient interest in the neighborhood to warrant a court? It's not like a basketball or baseball equipment which most of us have. I'd hate to see the expense of putting a bocce ball court in and then have few people use it. Make sure enough people really want it and will use it. I live too far away and wouldn't use it. I liked the plan better without the bocce court. Our family loves bocce! We even try to play on the lawn at Addison, but it's not optimal, to say the least. There are rocks in back of the existing swings with sharp edges that children climb on. Children have fallen on and been cut. These rocks should be removed and something safer put there. In designing a new bocce area and park, the amount of grass should be maximized, not replaced with concrete or paving. I would have to see where the bocce ball court would go, not sure if that was the open area next to the picnic tables. I am concerned about the toddler area. The design shows removal of the sand, spring toy and replacement with 2 toddler swings and blue flooring (I think is what it said). My daughter loves to play in the sand and many kids can play at a time. The new play area seems to only support 2 children at a time, whereas atleast with the sand, many kids can play. Looks great, especially with a bocce ball court. Fun for all ages, a quiet sport in a residential area, just perfect. Good for you!!! This is a great innovative idea and I have had several Palo Alto residents outside of the immediate Scott Park area tell me that they were impressed with the concept. I fully support. Scott Park is a gem--it's sad that the swing set has not been working for such a long time. If the bocce court installation could take place along with fixing the swing set, it would be great. I support the installation of a bocce court. Thank you I would like to see more variety in the swing-set area. At minimum, make one of the toddler swings a big kid swing to accommodate siblings of varying ages. Another playground toy such as a spring toy or small climbing structure would be best. Keep kids occupied while mom and dad play bocce! :-) Nice design that will be much more useful and this attract the broader cross section of people who live in the immediate area. The only element that really doesn't make sense to me is the planter (PA) in the corner of the basketball court. It's bound to be a hazard for the players and I'm willing to bet that errant "air balls" from the opposite side of the court will find their way into the planter soon destroying the foliage. Surely there's a better nearby location for the planter that will not infringe on and prevent the use of the full half court. I think a bocce ball court at Scott Park would be a wonderful addition to the current design and for the enjoyment of all the neighbors. i would not add fence to separate trees Should have a slightly bigger playground too. Sandbox, and more than just a swing. Sounds like a great idea! I was invited to play bocce ball in a City of San Jose park off Almaden Expressway. It was a fun experience in a very well-designed set of bocce ball courts. A Boules court would be fun too!! I think it looks great. Would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Great idea! It will bring neighbors together in a casual activity which can be enjoyed by all ages. I'm already thinking bocce and burgers on Sunday evening. Basketball is more popular than Bocce ball. My older kids play there. We already have a bocce ball court on Embarcadero, so two in one neighborhood for the few people in the city that play it (there are far more people who play basketball than bocce ball) seems odd. Also, we should not remove the small swing and toy area. My young daughter plays there, and I see other kids there frequently. Please silos consider Pétanque as an option to Bocce. I think it would add to the quality of life in the neighborhood by adding Bocce Bal or Pétanque. Scott park should be sold and the proceeds put in the park fund. Heritage park serves the area. Scott is no longer needed. I lived right next to this park for 3 years and it always needed some attention. I believe this would be a wonderful community builder, all while making better use of the space. Can't wait to finally have some swings back! Hello, I am not against the bocce ball court, but having looked at the plans I think the city is spending a lot of money for basically the same park that exists now. (minus the turtle, which is the best part of the play area - leave the turtle please). I think we could have more amenities and make it a great resource for the community beyond what it is currently. Could we add another table? Could there be a dog play area? How can we make it more than it is - not just new but really more? Looks good. Appears as if you are eliminating lot of hard surfaces. Plans a little hard to see on- line. Love the bocce court idea - I bet it will be well used. Lighting planning for evenings? Glad toddler swing is staying - spent many hours there as young mother! I live within a few yards of Scott Park. Leave the space for grass. It's to small a park to remove grassy area. How many people play bocce ball? Are we catering to a small minority of residents? A bocce court will result in more noise and debris. You asked; I prefer a quiet lawn. It looks as if you plan to restore the swings, maintain the basketball hoop, and add the Bocce. This will mean a lot of demographically diverse users - the immediately adjacent apartments will be heavily impacted. Where will folks who have driven to use the new bocce ball court park? The picnic table need to be moved to a more publicly visible area, closer to the proposed bocce ball court. You have no idea how much trouble occurs because they have been out of view of the streets and sidewalk, yet in plain view of my home. You might want to consider putting a fence around the bocce ball court to reduce the noise that echoes throughout the park due to it being surrounded by hard surfaces. Great idea -- We are for it! The presence of a basket ball hoop in a residential area is noisy for the residents who leave less than 30 feet away from it . Bouncing of the ball all day long until sometime 8pm is NOISY! and you want to add an other reason to make noise ? No Thank you! Bernard CARTAL 928 Scott street I live on Scott St - quite close to this park, and I am very much in favor of a bocce ball cout there. The area proposed for the court has been a late night location for teens to gather and party, so I hope the plan does not include picnic tables in the back corner. If the picnic tables were moved to a more public area, i.e. in view from Scott St or Channing Ave., I think it would be better. I live close to the park... I like the bocce idea... the plan looks great... make it happen already Glad you are fixing up the park. It needs it. design is good. I think it is a great idea to have a court there! We feel this would benefit a range of age groups and thus be a real addition to the park. I think the bocce ball court is a great idea. The combination of a tot park, a basketball area, and bocce will ensure that the park attracts neighbors of all ages. Both of the picnic benches and basketball court must be removed. The seating benches around the park are sufficient. The picnic benches are magnets for unwanted activity. Check the number of calls that PAPD gets for activity at those benches and you'll find plenty. Given the size of the park it also creates gatherings that are far too large and affect the quality of life of the surrounding residents. Today there was a group of 30 people treating it like a private rented area. We've live through parties of up to 80 people taking over the park in summer and using it like their own backyard. There are plenty of picnic benches at Heritage park to accommodate large and small groups. It is out in the open to make it easier for policing. The park is also larger and the noise dissipates because it is far more open and unlike Scott Park does not have sound reflecting hard surfaces echoing on 4 sides. Eliminate the basketball courts once and for all. The loud, foul language coming from that court the last few years makes it seem like we are living in a bad movie that we would never pay money to see much less want to live in. It is scary for elderly and inappropriate for small kids and anyone with a sense of decency. Get rid of the basketball court. It is a profanity laden nuisance in an otherwise quiet small park. Get rid of the picnic tables tucked near the trees and the garbage bins next to them. Kids go to those tables to smoke pot and make out. Drunks and homeless people go there to urinate. Replace them with a grass area and remove the paving underneath the tables. No bushes.They bring rats. There is already a rat problem there because the people using those tables overfill the cans and leave them off. The city pick up is weekly creating a stench on hot days for those of us with adjacent homes. That park since it is residential should be a sunset park. Meaning, it is closed after sunset. At present, only the basketball courts are closed at sunset. Given that the park is adjacent to residences and a nursing/rehab center, it does not benefit any of the surrounding residents to have people in that park after sunset. I had replied to this earlier before realizing you were not REMOVING the basketball court to replace it with Bocce ball but ADDING a Bocce ball court immediately behind a building where people live. I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to your entire project as a result. I will not support it and will solicit legal advice if you attempt to pursue it. I've lived here over 20 years and I am NOT moving--I don't care what it costs in legal fees, this proposal is not moving forward. It is dead. You propose to ADD more noise to a 1/4 acre park surrounded by hard reflecting, echoing surfaces? Are you crazy? Clearly you are not listening to the residents surrounding the park. I met with you months ago and expressed exactly this same sentiment to you directly. You are not listening. That will not do, so this means trouble for everyone, especially you for not listening when we spoke. Move the bocce ball court AND the basketball court AND the problematic picnic benches OUT of Scott Mini-park permanently. There is no other solution. We put up with enough noise from that park with the parties of 80-100 people lasting all day long. When we're not tolerating that, we have to put up with the constant foul language from the basketball courts, day and night. The lunchtime crowd is as foul-mouthed as the evening crowd. If you want to know how problematic the picnic benches have been over the decades, please review the PAPD call logs on trouble around the picnic benches: public drunkenness, fires, sex, drugs. I've lived adjacent to this park for over 20 years and there is NO WAY I will support adding MORE NOISE to that park. NONE. Clearly you have not done that. Do it now. I am opposed to everything you are doing to add to the park--absolutely everything. Get rid of the basketball court, get rid of the picnic tables. No Bocce ball. Move all that noise and trouble to the public view of Heritage park. NO to BOCCE BALL in Scott park. I can't believe you would put that court only feet from the fence from an apartment building where people live. Do you actually think Bocce ball is silent--that putting it so close to the fence will not impact people? Are you that thoughtless and inconsiderate to the residents who PAY to live here? You wouldn't live there, so don't ask that someone else do it for you. No sane person would put up with that noise. Think again. What you are proposing is absolutely mean-spirited to the residents and I cannot support it in any way. If you want a Bocce ball court, you have 3 acres in Heritage park just across the street. We residents surrounding Scott mini-park have no use for all the noise that will bring. Absolutely not. If you attempt it, I will sue the city. Guaranteed. Absolutely no to Bocce ball, basketball court and picnic tables. Your proposed plan is completely at odds with this quiet area that has been transformed by the loud patrons using the basketball court and people who abuse, what was intended as an amenity to a small park, the picnic benches. How dare you suggest adding more noise? Placing bocce ball within 5 feet of a small apartment building and 6 single family homes? This plan lacks common sense. You have heritage park less than a block away where you can place all your noisey activities and high intensity use. I would be glad to join other neighbors in bringing legal action against the city if you persist in this foolish attempt to erode further the quality of life of those voters and Palo residents whose homes are next to this park. We wholeheartedly support the installation of a bocce ball court in Scott Park. Looking at the plan, as a former landscape and urban planning designer, I fail to under stand the wisdom or necessity of placing bike parking in the tough-to-access area to the side of bocce ball court; may be more useful placed by the bench at the basketball court. Also, friends and family will want to watch the games; more than one bench (presently located at one side of the bocce ball court) should be installed. Looking forward to this great addition to our neighborhood! Carol Malcolm Too noises there already. Get rid of basketball courts. Get rid of picnic tables. No to bocce ball. What an outrage, with a huge park a block away, Parks and Rec. waists money on drawing up plans to over develop a tiny residential park without consulting the residents. When were the residents noticed that the city was going to meet with enthusiasts in October 2012? We certainly weren't given notice. We are completely opposed to the plans drawn for this park. Lower intensity use not higher intensity use is what is called for in a park this size. Excellent! We like this! My family has never played bocce, but we are going to start! Great! Generated: 8/21/2013 1:31:17 AM MINUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2014 CITY HALL 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Council Liaison Greg Schmid Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Hung Nguyen, Walter Passmore, Joe Teresi I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 6. Recommend Approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Scott Park Capital Improvement Project. Chair Hetterly: Daren, do you have a report to make? Daren Anderson: Yes, a brief one. Chair Hetterly: We have a number of public speakers. Why don't you go ahead and make your report and then we'll hear from the public. Mr. Anderson: Just to reintroduce myself again, Daren Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks and Golf. I'm here tonight to ask the Commission to make a recommendation to Council to approve a Park Improvement Ordinance for the design of the Scott Park CIP. I know you've heard this one several times, so I'm going to give you a quick recap of how we got here. This started in 2012, this CIP to replace some of the existing features out there, just to repair them and replace them. A public meeting was held on August 28th, 2012. At that meeting a couple of stakeholders said, "We'd like you to consider bocce." July 30th, 2013, we had an online survey. We had 93 responses and about 85 percent supported bocce. There were some serious concerns from some of the neighbors. The report still needed that and we've talked about it at previous meetings. On August 27th, 2013, Staff brought a Park Improvement Ordinance to the Commission. The Commission did not support it and suggested that we hold another public meeting and form an ad hoc committee. Commissioner Reckdahl and Commissioner Hetterly formed that subcommittee and participated in the public meeting. We met with stakeholders on November 21st. Peter Jensen and I incorporated numerous comments and feedback from various stakeholders, the Commission, and the ad hoc committee into a revised design. Staff returned to the Commission on December 10th, 2013, and at that meeting the ad hoc committee explained that there were some community members who were still against bocce and various iterations of that. Some included not having two courts. Some just didn't want bocce at all. Some would prefer getting rid of the basketball court and just having bocce. There were various concerns ranging from noise to parking, etc. In spite of those, the ad hoc committee felt the current design that included bocce had a lot of support and fit well in Scott Park. With that, I pass it over to the Commission. Chair Hetterly: We have six speakers, I believe. We'll start with Keith Gilbert, to be followed by Neil O'Sullivan. If you could keep your comments to 2 minutes or less, that would be great. We don't have the lights going, so I'll wave my hand at you. Public Comment Keith Gilbert: Keith Gilbert. Sue and I live on Addison Avenue, not far from Scott Park. I'd like to say first of all that the process as was described, I think, has been very effective in getting inputs from all of us, desires, concerns, ideas, putting them together and coming up with a very good plan for the park. One thing I like is that they've come up with an innovative idea in going to a potential system for checking out at the library of the bocce equipment and instructions for bocce. That's really a great tie-in of two of our neighborhood functions. I'm certainly a strong supporter of bocce. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. It's a very appropriate activity of being a quiet activity that brings together all age groups in something that we can do together at the park. I think having bocce and particularly as they've put it into the plan now is a very good idea. In summary, the proposal is something that makes Scott Park into much more of a neighborhood, bring-together place. You're going to see the start of people, instead of just walking through the park, which is something that I do almost every day, now we're going to have a lot more reason to stop and really enjoy the park. My summary is great proposal, good inputs, good process. Thank you. Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Neil O'Sullivan. Neil O'Sullivan: Good evening. I'm here representing myself and Mike McDono, who also lives at 362 Channing, and my next door neighbors, Chris and Carolyn, who can't be here because Chris is recovering from a broken back. We are all opposed to this plan primarily because we're trying to shoe-horn two sports courts into a 1/4-acre park when there's a perfectly good 2-acre park one block away that has no courts in it. We don't care whether it's bocce or basketball, but just one in this tiny 1/4-acre park and move one of them across the street into the other park which is 2 acres and virtually empty. That's my input. Thank you. Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Next we'll hear from Andrew Robell. Andrew Robell: Good evening. I'm Andrew Robell. I own a condominium at 325 Channing. That's in the Woodmark condo development of 36 units. We are right across the street from Scott Park. Many of our units including mine overlook Scott Park. I can see Scott Park from my window. At the last meeting on this subject as president of our homeowners' association, I stated that we had no problem with refurbishing Scott Park, but we are opposed to the inclusion of a bocce ball court. Number one, Scott Park is the smallest of Palo Alto's 28 parks. Sixty feet of lawn would be sacrificed for a bocce ball court. That's 20 feet more than a croquet field for a tiny, little park that's, I believe, less than half an acre. That's a lot of lawn gone. Secondly, parking. The staff gave no description or attention about parking. Scott Park has no dedicated parking area, unlike other parks. Where's the impact study regarding parking that would result from this inclusion? As you well know, parking is probably the hottest issue, certainly in our part of Palo Alto. I think any changes need to take that into account. Third, the survey that was reported was well intentioned. It was a good idea, but it cannot be considered definitive. The survey was not restricted or targeted to close neighbors. Indeed anybody not even living in Palo Alto could respond to the survey by accessing the URL. There was no restriction on multiple responses. Let's say an enthusiastic proponent, either pro or con, could submit as many responses to that survey as he or she wanted to. Fourth, bocce ball is a team sport. You could have a number of players and their supporters cheering them on. Whether it's a lot of players or very few players, I think it's reasonable to assume that bocce ball would not be as quiet as a lawn. Fifth, there was no survey or estimate in the reports that we've seen on the number of potential bocce ball players. In more than 50 years that I've been in touch with Palo Alto, there's never been an express need to build a bocce ball court or at least one has never been built so far. I'm sure there's a few people that are enthusiastic about it, but I think it's fair to say that it's a rather obscure sport. The few aficionados of it might come from other parts of town or even from other communities since there are very few bocce ball courts that are public. The argument that it's primarily for immediate neighborhood use may not be realistic, because devotees of bocce ball in other parts of Palo Alto would gather here because it's the only bocce ball court in Palo Alto if it's built. If it's necessary to establish a bocce ... Chair Hetterly: You're at the end of your time, if you could wrap-up please. Mr. Robell: Pardon? Chair Hetterly: You're over time, so please wrap-up quickly. Mr. Robell: OK. If it's necessary to please a handful of bocce ball enthusiasts to establish a bocce ball court, please put it in a larger parker with dedicated parking spaces. The people closest to Scott Park which is the gentleman that spoke earlier, Mr. O'Sullivan, our homeowners' association of 36 homeowners request that you not put a bocce ball court in Scott Park. Thank you. Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Next we'll hear from Richard Brand. Richard Brand: Good evening, Commissioners. Richard Brand, 281 Addison. I live a block away from the Scott Park. Who would have thought that just renovation of our aged Scott Park, which has been there for over 25 years,. I've lived there 22 years, but that park used to be houses. Who would have thought it would have taken this long to get this park renovated? I have to say I think your staff has done a great job here. They've gone out, got a survey. By the way that survey was sent to local residents, neighbors, not to the whole community. The comment from my dear neighbor about everybody being able to comment is incorrect. That was a local distribution and Daren can speak to that. The point was that we had a neighborhood group that wanted to use the park for, first of all, for our kids to enjoy swings and things like that. Today it's derelict. There's no swings. My neighbors will talk about that I think. Joyce, you're going to comment on that. We need to have a park done. The recommendation is to have bocce. My good friend, Councilman Schmid, knows parking's a problem, but it's a neighborhood issue. We don't expect people to come in from East Palo Alto or wherever to play bocce. We've got neighbors that are going to do this. Some of us have our own bocce balls. I recommend that you pass this. I think we have a good design here. There may be a few adjustments that need to be made. By the way the Summer Hill projects or Woodmark, I guess is the term now, is twice as far away from Scott Park as it is to Heritage Park. If you've been to Heritage Park lately, there's a lot of kids that enjoy and recreate and shout and play. They make a lot of noise. I guarantee that bocce is going to be 30 percent or less noise than is generated by the park that's closer to Summer Hill. In conclusion I support the work you've done. I know it's been a tough road to go and I thank you for your work. Chair Hetterly: Next we'll hear from Joyce McClure. Joyce McClure: Hello. I live at the corner of Bryant and Addison. We also own a home at the end of Scott Street at 310 Addison. Then we own a home that's actually next door to the gentleman who has been participating who is complaining about the noise. I actually am not that happy with the way this process has gone because the previously approved design, which is close to the design that's been there for 30 years, was in place for a year. That was the one that was distributed to people which people responded on the survey. I personally happened to be out of town on November 21st, and I wrote to Daren and said, "I'm not going to be at the meeting, but these are my concerns." I didn't know that there was a plan to completely change the design that's already there. Now I would like to speak to the previous design. I don't know if people are aware of what that is or not, if you have pictures of it. I do and I have some that I can pass out if you would like. I'm a preschool professional. I've been teaching preschool in this area not recently but for 30 years. When I noticed what this group did not approve, did not like the design that was approved by the residents, they don't really say why the Commission did not support the design of the park. One thing that they say is they relocated the play area to improve visibility from the street. I don't know why any children need to be a part of improved visibility. You've got children that are right there, and we're talking about that street, Channing Avenue, where people don't start. We've got no barriers between toddlers and the street. That street is also used for just people to walk through from Scott Street through to Heritage Park. Originally my understanding of the design of Heritage Park and the Summer Hill project is there's supposed to be a visual openness from Addison through to Homer. This will kind of obliterate that vista. If we look at the previous plan and what's there now, where it says turf area, that's where picnic tables were so people can eat there and then they can enjoy things. Most importantly the swings are now located under the stand of redwood trees. They're separated. It's a much healthier environment for children. Right now where it's currently located in this new proposed plan is right behind a parking lot for the convalescent center, and this is where the employees of the convalescent center take their smoking breaks. My son and my daughter-in-law live on Channing right behind the park. I also support bocce ball. The basketball stakeholders, the picnic stakeholders and the children stakeholders have now been all compressed in a tiny area which is not going to be satisfying for any of them. The previously proposed plan did include the bocce ball. I think it's unsafe and I think it's a mistake, the new plan. Thank you. Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Next we'll hear from Andy Hertzfeld. Andy Hertzfeld: Hi, I'm Joyce's husband. I lived in 370 Channing, which is right behind the park. We've owned that for over 30 years now, so I know how that park is being used. I think bocce is great. That park does serve multiple constituencies with basketball. I used to play basketball there myself. The swings have been defunct. I think it's been two years since the swings have needed repair. That's space that hasn't benefited the neighborhood for two years. I don't know why it takes so long. I think they were maybe structurally unsafe, but why not just fix the swings? It seems silly to prioritize the bocce ball, which will be used by primarily older people, over the facilities for the kids in the park. The swings were in the optimal place really for the children. To move them near the parking lot and closer to the street. I think in the current plan there's trees separating the basketball court from the picnic tables. Those trees aren't going to form a perfect edge. Those basketballs are going to shoot through, I think, at least until maybe it's a hedge or something. Until it gets mature, you're going to need a fence to stop the basketballs from hitting the picnic tables. I think it's great to have the bocce ball court, but not for the bocce ball court to dominate all the other uses of the park. Thank you. Commission Discussion Chair Hetterly: Thank you. That's the end of our public comment. As you all know, this came before us last month as well with the same design. We had quite a bit of discussion. Just for the information of the public, the reason the playground moved was associated with the movement of the picnic tables out of the dark corner. I think there was a judgment made that it was useful to have the picnic tables in the vicinity of the playground as well. We made a recommendation from the adhoc committee. Commissioner Reckdahl: The reason those were moved is because of neighborhood complaints. People congregate at late hours and that was undesirable for a lot of the neighbors. Mr. Hertzfeld: I lived in that house right across from it for ... Chair Hetterly: We can't have a dialog. Sorry. What? Are there any questions or comments? Do you want to hear from the ad hoc committee? Vice Chair Lauing: Yeah. Does the ad hoc committee have any input for us? Commissioner Reckdahl: This has been a long grind, but I'm really happy with the current design. I think that Daren and Peter Jensen have done a very good job. We had multiple outreach meetings. I think the final product is very good. The bocce is a perfect fit for this neighborhood park. I think the location of the sand is very nice. The picnic tables, moving them to be visible, I think is a very good design. It can be very usable, very popular. I think this is a no-brainer. Chair Hetterly: We also appreciated that so many people came repeatedly to meetings to share your input. I know it often has kept you late at night with sitting through all our other stuff. We really do appreciate all your input. Obviously when there's disagreement about a plan, you can't always please everybody. Our ad hoc committee at least thought that this plan was a defensible plan. Yes, Commissioner Crommie. Commissioner Crommie: I'm happy with the plan too, the way it's turned out. But I'm also very sympathetic to the people who are unhappy with it. I wish we could make it better. I live across the street from Monroe Park which is probably the second smallest park in Palo Alto. We see activities there waxing and waning. We had our swing set removed. We were all distraught. Now ten years later, we're hoping to get another one back again. I think you just kind of go with the flow. It's always disappointing when it doesn't go your way. I really feel for that. I visited the park and looked at the old swing set there. It was in that corner and I know it had assets to be under those trees. One compromise that we're trying to strike in Monroe Park, we also have a lot of redwood trees in our tiny park, and we're trying to maybe put a play house in among the trees for some creative play. That's one idea I have for you for future thought. I know it doesn't replace the swings. I'm excited about the community interest in the bocce ball. I think it's unique. It's followed a good process, and I think we're going to learn a lot from this. I see it as an experiment. I hope people come back and talk to us about it if we go this direction. Thank you. Chair Hetterly: If there's no further discussion, do we have a Motion on this? Commissioner Markevitch: I move that we approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for Scott Park. Commissioner Knopper: I second that Motion. MOTION: Commissioner Markevitch moved and Commission Knopper seconded approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance for Scott Park. Chair Hetterly: All in favor. It's unanimous in favor of approving the Park Improvement Ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Vice Chair Lauing: Thanks Daren. That was great effort. Chair Hetterly: Yes, thanks very much. Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4372) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects Title: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment G) in the amount of $335,000, transferring funds from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Improvement Project Fund, increasing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011 by $335,000, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contracts with the following firms for design services and related actions necessary for implementation of priority projects within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan: 1. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment A) in the amount of $400,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update (Palo Alto Avenue to 100-FT North of E Meadow Drive); the Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Boulevard); the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue-Guinda Avenue). 2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Attachment B) in the amount of $450,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park Neighborhood Class III Bicycle Facilities project; the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road); the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road); the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase (Castilleja Avenue to W Charleston Road); and the Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). This contract City of Palo Alto Page 2 also includes online community outreach efforts for both the Alta Planning + Design and Fehr and Peers Bicycle Boulevard projects. 3. Sandis Engineers (Attachment C) in the amount of $275,000 for design and environmental assessment of the Churchill Avenue Improvement Project (El Camino Real to Castilleja Avenue). This contract also includes a focused Caltrans study to help procure encroachment permits for future construction. 4. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment D) in the amount of $369,446 for a feasibility study and preliminary environmental assessment for the Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Project (Alma Street to Highway 101). 5. Mark Thomas & Associates (Attachment E) in the amount of $736,765 for preliminary design and environmental assessment of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan (Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue). Staff also recommends that Council concurrently authorize staff to coordinate with Google and their transportation planning consultant, Alta Planning + Design, for the planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Highway 101 to Alma Street); San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Byron Street to Alma Street); the Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway (San Antonio Avenue to Charleston Road); and the Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route. Background The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on July 9, 2012 and includes a Proposed Bikeway Network (Attachment F) and associated priority projects by project type including Bicycle Boulevards, Across Barrier Connections, Bike Lanes/Sharrows/Enhanced Bikeways, and other project types. As part of the current year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the City made a significant commitment to help advance the plan through the funding of several key projects, not including prior year or future year funding: CIP PL-04010, Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan $1,318,009 CIP PL-14000, El Camino Real & Churchill Ave Improvements $283,651 CIP PE-11011, Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $1,396,168 CIP PL-14001, Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown $383,651 City of Palo Alto Page 3 CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School $169,536 The recommended consultant contracts in this report represent a major step forward in the advancement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. In addition to the proposed projects, the City has other pending projects including: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass This project is currently in the Environmental Assessment Phase and the City plans to solicit design consultant proposals in this Spring. Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is being designed using in-house resources and will be presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission later this month. City Council consideration for approval of a Final Plan is anticipated by Spring. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is currently being designed through on-call consultant contracts by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The City has already held two community outreach meetings and a third is anticipated this Spring. Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council approvals will be requested this Summer. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Safe Routes to School – Phase 1 Safety Improvements As part of the development of new Walk and Roll Maps for each of the city’s public schools, the community assisted in identifying key intersections where minor safety improvements were prioritized and implemented this winter. A total of 40 intersections were upgraded with enhanced crosswalk markings or signage. A Phase 2 Safety Improvements project is anticipated in the Fall 2014. Bicycle Detection Improvements The City procured microwave-focused bicycle detectors and installed them at key bicycle crossing intersections for trial evaluation. The units were installed earlier this month at the intersections of Bryant Street & Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road & Wilkie Way, and Charleston Road & Carlson Drive. The units detected bicyclists up to 300-FT in advance of a signalized intersection and prioritize bicycle detection to help City of Palo Alto Page 4 ensure an earlier “green” indication at the traffic signal. Bicycle Marking Improvements This year the City deployed its first green bicycle lane safety markings along the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard near Oregon Expressway and on the Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway near Newell Road. Additional “greenback” Sharrow roadway markings were also installed along Cowper Street between E Meadow Drive and St Claire Drive. The proposed design contracts allow for a continued and significant advancement in implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan with 17 new Bicycle Boulevard, Enhanced Bikeway or Bicycle Routes projects. Summary of Key Issues Each of the recommended consultant contracts was developed based on proposals submitted and evaluated in response to several Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by the City in the Summer and Fall of 2013. Bicycle Boulevards The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope included ten Bicycle Boulevard or Enhanced Bikeway projects. Each has been included in one of the recommended contracts as indicated below: Project Lead Consultant 1. Barron Park Neighborhoods Class III Bicycle Facilities Fehr & Peers 2. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update Alta 3. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fehr & Peers 4. Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 5. Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Alta 6. Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Alta 7. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 Fehr & Peers 8. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 9. Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers 10. Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers City of Palo Alto Page 5 The City received a total of five (5) proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed each of the firms. Alta Planning + Design and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants were identified as the recommended firms to partner with the City in the completion of the projects. The ten projects were divided between the two firms and identified above. Each of the firms represented demonstrated strong skills and experience in the development of innovative bicycle projects including bicycle boulevard facility design and community outreach & engagement. Community Outreach Strategy During the interviews each of the firms interviewed expressed concern regarding “community fatigue” from community outreach participation given that many of the projects overlap neighborhoods. The projects were divided in such a manner that allows meetings to target multiple neighborhoods and allow for discussion on various projects. Each of the consultant work scopes also includes “bike-along” outreach events to help solicit community input in the field to help residents better explain their areas of concern or suggested improvements directly in the field. The City also consolidated online outreach for all of the projects onto the Fehr & Peers work scope to take advantage of GIS-based outreach tools to ensure that the online community involvement process appears seamless to all participants. Technical Advisory Committee The City is also exploring the development of a small Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that will meet during normal business hours and include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), City-School Traffic Safety Committee, Planning & Transportation Commission, and local business leaders. The TAC is intended as a forum where consultants could share ideas and ensure consistency in project designs. The TAC will also help inform the consultants regarding initial community interest areas to help prepare and advance design concepts prior to community meetings. Having representatives from both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will also help ensure preliminary feedback from each of those bodies. Both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will continue to receive on-going program updates for each project. 11. Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements This project includes the design of both bicycle & pedestrian facilities along Churchill Avenue between Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real as well as roadway capacity improvements for vehicles through the addition of a westbound right turn lane at El Camino Real. The City pursued grant-funds for this project as part of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program last year but was unsuccessful in receiving funds for the project. The proposed project has synergies with the Castilleja Avenue-Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard project and the El City of Palo Alto Page 6 Camino Real element of the Stanford Perimeter Trail. As part of the OBAG proposal review process, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also identified this project as having opportunities to integrate with their proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. The City released an RFP for this project on July 6, 2013 and received only one proposal in response to the RFP from Sandis Engineers. Sandis Engineers has extensive experience working in the City of Palo Alto and was selected for the design of the project. 12. Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Feasibility Study This project includes the completion of a Feasibility Study to identify community-preferred alignments for the project and Across Barrier Connection alternatives at each end of the project segment, Alma Street and Highway 101. This project currently is eligible for $1.5 million in dedicated grant-funding for the construction phase of the project via a grant from the County of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program through the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program. The grant is reimbursable and will be received upon completion of the project. The City released an RFP for this project on May 20, 2013 and received two proposals in response. Alta Planning + Design was selected to complete this project because of their extensive community experience through the development of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, work on the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing project, and their nationwide experience in developing innovative bicycle-pedestrian crossing solutions along trail segments. The successful completion of a Feasibility Study is required before the Santa Clara County grant funding can be released to the City. The Feasibility Study will require approval by the both the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 13. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project This project advances the Complete Street elements of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Trial Projects including: new landscaped median islands; intersection bulb-outs to help reduce pedestrian crossing distances; enhanced bike lanes and bikeway facilities; new street trees; new streetlights; and streetscape treatments. The current phase of the project is for the Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Phases of the project to help build consensus around community-preferred improvements before initiating final design. The City has received partial grant-funding for the construction phases of this project including a $450,000 grant from the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Safe Routes to School Program for the portion of Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and City of Palo Alto Page 7 Alma Street; and a $1,000,000 grant from the VTA – VERBS Program for the portion of Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Miranda Avenue including an upgrade of the Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue. The City released an RFP for this project on June 4, 2013 and received eight (8) proposals in response. The Mark Thomas & Company design team was identified as the preferred consultant for the project demonstrating strong civil experience in the design of enhanced bikeway and streetscape facilities. The recommendation includes a request for adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to transfer additional funding in the amount of $350,000 from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to CIP Project PE-13011 (Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Google – Bicycle Facility Projects Google has its central headquarters in the City of Mountain View in the North Bayshore Business Park. Google is in the process of completing tenant improvements for future occupancy of the 200 San Antonio Avenue, the site formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard. The future Google facility is located on the Mountain View-Palo Alto border and is the southern terminus of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard via Nelson Drive-Mackay Drive. Google places a high priority in providing alternative transportation modes to its employees and contractors and has requested the ability to participate in the Bicycle Boulevard program through the funding of facilities identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Google proposed to fund the planning and preliminary environmental assessment phases for the following projects: Project Lead Consultant 14. San Antonio Road Class III Route (Hwy 101 to W City Limit) Alta 15. San Antonio Avenue Class III Route (Byron St to Alma St) Alta 16. Alma Street (San Antonio Avenue to E Charleston Road) Alta 17. Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route Alta Alta is the lead consultant for several of the proposed bicycle projects in this staff report. Staff sees synergy opportunities in expanding this project to include these bicycle linkages. Inclusion of the projects now also ensures consolidated community outreach opportunities. Google will fund all consultant expenses for these projects directly; no city resources beyond staff costs for coordination are anticipated. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Schedule of Design and Implementation Each of the 17 projects provides for either preliminary planning to help identify concept plan line alternatives that can then be advanced into final design and environmental assessment at a later stage, or complete design for development of construction bid packages. Staff anticipates each of projects to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Concept plan line development allows for development of more refined construction schedules, which depend on the level of improvements requested by communities through which the projects pass. Final design is generally undertaken upon Council approval of the concept plan line alternatives, and results in more refined cost estimates. The City anticipates pursuing grants to support construction of the projects and the use of available infrastructure funding to match or supplement grant funding as needed. Policy Implications Each of the proposed project helps to implement the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportaiton Plan and is consistent with the following Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Resource Impact A total of five consultant contracts are recommended through this staff report, each with a different funding source: 1. Alta Planning + Design – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $400,000 from CIP PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan – Implementation Project) is recommended allowing for a base City of Palo Alto Page 9 project of $350,000 and an Additional Services budget of $50,000 to assist in grant writing development and additional graphics development. 2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $450,000 from CIP PL-04010 is recommended allowing for a base project of $390,685 and an Additional Services budget of $59,315 to assist in online community outreach support, website development and maintenance, and grant writing development. 3. Sandis Engineers – Churchill Avenue Improvements A contract in the amount of $275,000 from CIP PL-14000 (El Camino Real & Churchill Avenue Intersection Improvements – Design) is recommended allowing for a base project of $250,000 and an Additional Services budget of $25,000 to assist in project coordination with the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the VTA Bus Rapid Transit projects. 4. Alta Planning + Design – Matadero Creek Trail A contract in the amount of $369,446 from CIP PL-14001 (Matadero Creek Trail) is recommended allowing for the complete project. No Additional Services budget is anticipated as part of this project as the current project phase include just Feasibility Study and Prleiminary Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the amount of funding allocated for the entire design of this project in FY 2014 is $383,651. With the funding for the feasibility study and environmental assessment anticpated to use nearly all of the design funding, an alternative funding source will need to be pursued for the remaining design costs. It is anticipated that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project will be funded in FY 2015 in the amount of $1.2 million. The additional funding required for the design is expected to be allocated to the FY 2015 appropriation for this project. 5. Mark Thomas & Company – Charleston Rd-Arastradero Rd Corridor Project A contract in the amount of $736,765 from CIP PE-13011 (Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project) is recommended allowing for a base project of $669,765 and an Additional Services budget of $67,000 to accommodate environmental assessment studies that may be required for the project and to assist in grant writing development. A budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $335,000 is recommended as part of this report to increase funding in the project to accommodate the expense. The increased expense would be supported by a transfer from the Charleston/Arastradero Developer Impact Fee Fund. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Google is funding four proposed linkages directly with Alta Planning + Design as their lead consultant. The City anticipates staff resources to help coordinate additional community meetings but no direct costs for the design development of these Bike Plan projects. Timeline The City anticates that preliminary design and environmental assessment of each of the above projects will take approximately one year to complete, although the level of effort and timeline will depend on community participation and interest. Realistically, it will likely take two years for all of the contracted work to be complete, however some projects will be ready for construction in advance of that timeline if funding becomes available. Staff can provide a regular update to the Council on these projects and overall implementaiton of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Environmental Review The requested contracts would allow for environmental review of those projects requiring further review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment C: Sandis Engineers Contract - Design & Environment Assessment - Churchill Ave. Improvement Project (PDF) Attachment D: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Matadero Creek Trail, Phase I (PDF) Attachment E: Mark Thomas & Associates - Preliminary Design & Environmental Assessment - Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (PDF) Attachment F: PABP 2012 - Proposed Bikeway Network (PDF) Attachment G: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Charleston/Arastradero (DOC) ATTACHMENT A CONSULT ANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed. Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000. 00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-1 ", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A''. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULT ANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-1 "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. AU of the Services shall be performed by CONSULT ANT or under CONSULT ANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULT ANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpennitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar know ledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and_orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any.and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CTIY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULT ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design docwnents to construct the Project, CONSULT ANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, 2 Professional Services ~-Nov. 1. 2011 omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTil\fATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shaH submit estL."nAtes of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (1 0%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSlJLT ANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Proj.ect budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTA..NT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULT ANT are material considerations for this Agreement CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULT ANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city ma.1.1ager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 636 9th Street Oakland, California, 94607 Telephone (510) 590-3421 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, California, 95126 Telephone (408)248-3500 HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 111 W. Saint John Street San Jose, CA. 95113 Telephone, (408) 971-6100 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULT A.i'TT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. 3 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Joe Gilpin as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Casey Hildreth as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project cooJ1iinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assigninent of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULT ANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Jaime Rodrigues, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2136. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULT ANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULT ANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION15. AUDITS. CONSULTANTwillpermitCITYtoaudit,atanyreasonabletimeduring the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULT ANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to 4 Professional Services Rev.Nov.l,2011 require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Ind.etnrified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions ofthis Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of a.'l.y subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18 .1. CONSULT ANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance .coverage described in Exhibit ''D". CONSULT A.""'T and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an ·additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18 .2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with Ai\{ Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above: 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval ofCITY~s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (3 0) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the ca."'lceHation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULT ANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULT ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement. is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (1 0) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULT ANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULT ANT will immediately discontinue its perfonnance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULT ANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or tennination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement.. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19 .4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULT ANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 1 0 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or tennin.ated on account of a default by CONSULT ANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULT ANT only for that portion of CONSULT ANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhis!her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: ToCTIY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 1 0250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov. t, 2011 21.1 . In accepting this Agreement, CONSULT ANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, fmancial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULT ANT r.uther covenants that, in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsuitants, contractors. or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any fmancial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that te1m is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULT ANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULT ANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULT ANI' shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and prbter· including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greaterpost·consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City~ for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. 7 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 SECTION 24 •. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at anytime within a fJScal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25 .1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25 .2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULT ANT personal information as defined in California Civil.Code section 1798 .81.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Infonnation"), CONSULT ANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security 8 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 of the Personal Information. CONSULT ANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 9 Professional SeJVices Rev. Nov. l, 2011 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authodzed representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager ALTD~~G +DESIGN By. ~ 1/\. L' Name: ~("e..# ~~k r f Title: :f n r-~ rw{ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHffiiT "C-1 ": EXHffiiT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY is contracting with CONSULTANT to provide planning, community outreach, conceptual design, and preliminary environmental assessment for the following projects. • Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Upgrade (Palo Alto A venue to 100-FT N ortb. ofE Meadow Drive) • Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road) · • Moreno Avenue-Amarillo A venue (Middlefield Road to West Baysh.ore Road) • Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road) • Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue- Guinda A venue) A. Kick Off Meeting/Baseline Data/Community Outreach Plan Task A.l Kick Off Meeting with City Staff CONSULTANT will facilitate a kick-off meeting with CTIY staff to discuss each respective project's background, deliverables, and anticipated timeli.nes. A key outcome of this meeting will be the community outreach meetings' dates, times, locations, and agendas. Task A.2 Obtain Baseline Data Prior to the kick-off meeting the CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Needs Assessment memorandum that identifies what available data the CONSULT ANT has to begin each project and identify what CITY-furnished resources are required. CITY shall make available GIS-based data including right-of-way interest, CITY-maintained utilities, parcel/subdivision maps, and current traffic data information from its 2013 Traffix Existing Conditions files. As part of the Needs Assessment memorandum the CONSULT ANT will identifY recommended locations where additional video-based counts to collect bicycle/pedestrian data, mechanical tube counters to collect vehicle speed/occupancy data, manual turning movement counts for Level of Service calculations, and parking studies for project impact assessment should be collected. Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and is anticipated to include: • Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations) • Seven days ofbicyclistlpedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one coW'I.t will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)-(up to 15 locations) · • Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total) CITY will make available resources for the CONSULT ANT to come to CITY Hall to obtain record drawings, right-ofway and parcel maps, records of survey, parcel and subdivision maps, available Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 12 utility maps, utility plans, assessor's maps, and any available survey information in ArcGIS or AutoCAD format. The CONSULTANT will be responsible for any field surveys to help develop maps for the project. The CONSULT ANT will budget up to twelve (12) days of survey crews (two- person crew) to gain an understanding of specific corridor segment conditions where detailed information is lacking. Task A.3 Prepare Study Base Maps Based on the available data from Task A.2, CONSULTANT shall prepare study base maps with aerial background to help guide in the development of concept plan lines for presentation to the community. The basemaps should highlight existing curb limits, face-of-curb, back-of-walk, park strip limits, visible utilities, streetlights, wayfinding and street signage, and reference monuments. The study basemaps should be available in CAD format (.DWG) and scaled to format suitable for both planning and preliminary engineering concepts (e.g., l" = 20/40'). To assist in the refinement of the study base maps the CONSULTANT shall conduct a field inventory of each project corridor photographing and noting field conditions that may impact design concepts for each project. At locations where major civil improvements are be anticipated, such as new traffic signals, traffic circles, or intersection reconfigurations, the study base maps should include cross-streets at these locations up to 250-FT per approach of each side street to assist CONSULTANT in developing proper concept plan line renderings for review by the community. Task A.4 Finalize Public Outreach Plan CONSULT ANT shall prepare a detailed project schedule outlining the agreed upon public outreach plan from Task A.l including milestone targets for community meetings, field inventories, community walkabouts, and community ride-a-longs. This outreach plan schedule will be maintained by the CONSlJ"LT ANT and updated regularly. Task A.5 Project Management Throughout the planning process, CONSULTANT will be in regular contact with CITY to keep CITY staff apprised of the project effort and to seek input at key decision points. CONSULT ANT will set up regular check-in meetings on a bi-weekly basis. CONSULTANT will prepare meeting minutes covering the discussion items. With each monthly invoice, Alta's project manager will provide a progress report that summarizes. task budget expended, estimated percent of task completion, and a 30 day "look ahead" of upcoming project milestones. CONSULT ANT will employ a two-tier quality control system for all major deliverables that includes (1) peer review, and (2) independent review by principals. Advanced design concepts and cost estimates will be reviewed by a licensed traffic engineer before distribution to CITY, with complex engineering challenges receiving multiple reviews by specialists. Task A Deliverables • Project Team Meeting #1: Project Kick-off agenda and notes • Data Needs Memorandum & Data Collection • Study Base Maps • Preliminary Public Outreach Plan 13 Professional Services .Rev. Nov. 1,2011 B. ONGOING COMMUNITY ~l> STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Task B.l Staff/Project Site Assessments Distinct from the project kick-off meeting, CONSULT Mrr and CITY will organize and participate in a bicycle ride-a-long of each of the project corridors with select community members to help in early identification of potential areas of concern for each project (up to 5 ride-a-longs total). CITY will identify the appropriate ride-a-long participants but the CONSULT ANT shall develop outreach materials including flyers. Task B.2 Develop Initial/Ongoing Outreach Materials CONSULT ANT shall develop a suite of initial outreach materials for each project .for review and approval by CITY, including: • Project Website Web Content including project descriptions, project maps, and scheduling details. As meetings or milestones are reached, the CONSULTANT shall be responsible for updating this data and providing it to CITY for placement on CITY websites. • Project Information and Event Fliers/Posters: Template documents specific to each project corridor that can be easily modified to project events and released to the public. • Best Practices Presentation: An education slideshow that can be provided on the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard projects website and used at corrununity meetings to educate the public regarding base practice treatments that may be appropriate for use in the CITY. • Initial Community Workshop Boards/Presentations/Base Maps CITY will utilize other consultants working on similar projects to develop a web-based community outreach tool using ArcGIS for Server. CITY shall collect infonnation from the web-based tool and forward raw content data to the CONSULT ANT for processing, formatting, and evaluation. Using a common platform for all Bicycle Boulevard projects within the community will ensure a consistent method in which the community can provide input to projects online. Task B.3 Technical Advisory Committee CONSULT ANT shall be required to participate in monthly Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) meetings comprised of various representative of CITY. The TAC will be attendant by consultants working on other projects in CITY and will serve as a forum to CONSULT ANT to receive preliminary feedback on presentation materials and design concepts. CITY will organize the T AC separately and notify the CONSULTA."NT of meeting recurrences. The TAC may include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC), CITY -School Traffic Safety Committee Partnership, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), CITY Council, and private sector interests. CITY anticipates up to 15 TAC meetings through the life of this project. The CONSULT ANT shall attend each TAC meeting. Task B.4 Initial Community Outreach Meeting CONSULT ANT will host an initial conummity outreach meeting to gather input and feedback from community members about the project (up to 5 community outreach meetings total). The CONSULT fu'IT will present educational materials on bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway 14 Professional Semces Rev. Nov. 1, 201 1 measures that may be appropriate for each proposed project. Community outreach meetings shall be scheduled after CONSULTANT completes basic data collection and mapping for each proposed project corridor, including intersection traffic control and existing traffic calming features. CONSULT ANT will develop all presentation materials, lead the community outreach process, and serve as. note· taker. The community. outreach meeting will serve as an opportunity for the CONSULT ANT to solicit public interest in the project and to help better understand and document areas of concern., identify additional areas of focused traffic data collection and design strategies. CITY will identify meeting locations and procure meeting space and advertise the community outreach materials developed by the CONSULT ANT. Task B.S Walking/Biking Tours CONSULTANT shall participate in at least one citywide walking or biking tour of each project site to help educate community members regarding the proposed projects, solicit additional community input to help develop concept plan line concepts, and validate design assumptions (up to 5 walking or biking tours total). The CONSULTANT shall develop marketing materials for each event and CITY will advertise them. C. CONCEPT PLAN LINE DEVELOPMENT Task C.l Concept Plan Line Development Following the initial community outreach meetings, CONSULTANT will collect all remaining traffic data for the project and use the traffic data to prepare up to three (3) concept plan line options that respond to the community's input and address the fundamentals of bicycle boulevard or enhanced bikeway design. The concept plan line options will be prepared at a schematic design level suitable for future development of35· percent design plans, but formatted in a way that can be easily understood by the public. The concept plan line options will show proposed civil engineering improvements, pavement markings, signage, and other traffic control treatments. Based on the traffic data collected, the CONSULT ANT will estimate the range of potential future usage of each facility. CONSULT ANT will also present the concept plan line options at regularly scheduled TAC meetings for additional input. Task C.2 -Community Outreach Meetings and Bicycling Audits For each proposed project, CONSULT ANT will conduct two (2) community/stakeholder outreach meetings to present the concept plan line options (up to 10 community outreach meetings total). Additionally, CONSULTANT will participate in one bicycling audit of the project corridor for select residents identified by CITY staff {Task B.S). Feedback from the community outreach meetings and bicycling audit will be used to refme a community-preferred concept plan line alternative for the project. In an effort to streamline the community outreach process, CONSULTANT may be asked, to participate in consolidated outreach efforts that target multiple residential neighborhood groups of the community in lieu of separate outreach meetings, and/or may be asked to participate in the regularly scheduled meetings of residential neighborhood groups 15 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 20 11 Task C.3 -Project Proposal Memorandum CONSULT ANT will develop up to two (2) community-preferred concept plan lines based on input received through the community outreach meetings. The flrst community-preferred concept plan lines may be a near-term plan that allows for immediately implementation of the project through minor signage & striping changes along with minor traffic control changes such as Stop-control removals with minor traffic calming mitigation.. The second community-preferred concept plan line may provide long-term improvement options such as woonerf improvements, grade-separate cycletrack facilities, sidewalk widening or intersection bulb-outs, etc. The CONSULTANT will prepare a Project Proposal Memorandum that describes the project's proposed improvements, environmental tradeoff's, impacts, preliminary construction costs, and preliminary mitigation for environmental assessment. The Project Proposal Memorandum should include a SUll".mary of community outreach and input. The memorandum will be used in staff reports update the Plannir..g & Transportation Commission. Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and CITY Council on how the project was developed.· The memcrandum will also be posted on the project website. Task C.4-Presentation of Community Preferred Plan Line Concept CONSULTANT will present the community-preferred concept plan line to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and CTIY Council along with supporting traffic data findings and cost estimates. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STUDY Task D.l-California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documentation The CONSULT ANT's Environmental Team Member will provide input to the team on the tradeoffs between the various alternatives that are developed and the implications of the alternatives for the schedule and extent of environmental review. These findings shall be documented within the Project Proposal Memorandum. Assuming Categorical Exemption findings are appropriate for each individual project, the CONSULT ANT shall prepare the appropriate environmental documents for review and approval by CITY. The CONSULTANT should assume a minimum traffic report that studies potential Stop- control removals and discussions regarding the operations of the bicycle boulevard. The tra:flic study should also be able to account for minor traffic calming measures such as traffic hump installations or other minor roadway deflection tools. If any project includes elements that require additional environmental reports necessary to satisfy factors CEQA, the CONSULT ANT should identify those additional studies for inclusion in future phases of the project (i.e., traffic studies analyze roadway closures or rerouting of traffic onto other streets because of select or approach closures. These more significant environmental assessment studies will be completed in the future PS&E stages of the project. Based. on the information available at this time, CITY anticipates that the proposed Bicycle Boulevard and Enhanced Bikeway Facilities will qualify for a Class 4(h) Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(h). The CONSULTANT will be responsible for preparing and filing the CEQA Notice of Exemption at the conclusion of this phase of work. 16 Pro!essiona: Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 Task D.2 -Community Outreach Meeting CONSULT ANT will attend a community meeting to provide background information about the environmental review process and answer questions from the public. CITY anticipates this meeting be either a Planning & Transportation Commission meeting or a CITY Council meeting to take advantage of other project meetings. E. PLANS SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line by CITY and CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award of additional contracts will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY anticipate direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects identified in this contract pending the successful completion of the Planning & Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement. E. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall be available to provide Additional Services to CITY including, but not limited to: • Grant Writing • Focused Traffic or Parking Studies to satisfy CEQA • Design Contingency CITY and CONSULT ANT shall discuss each Additional Task in writing and identify a cost for each service prior to commencement of work. 17 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 EXIllBIT "B" SCHEDl~EOFPERFO&~CE CONSULT M"Pf shall perform the Sexvices so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks/months specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULT ANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Milestones 1. Kick Off Meeting 2. Baseline Maps 3. Community Outreach 4. Technical Advisory Committee 5. Conceptual Plan lines 18 Completion No. of Days!W eeks!M:onths FromNTP 30 Days 90 Days 12 Months 18 Months 12 Months Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 EXJDBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services perfonned in accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $350,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. ln the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $400,000.00. Any work perfonned or expenses incurred for which payment would result in .a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULT ANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer ofbudget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $350,000.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $400,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Taskl (Project Initiation & Management) Task2 (Ongoing Communication & Stakeholders Outreach) Task3 (Concept Plan Line Development) Task4 (Environmental Analysis) TaskS (Data Collection Counts) $87,115.00 $55,149.00 $111,895.00 $47,855.00 ·$45,000.00 Sub-total Basic Services $347,014.00 Reimbursable Expenses $2,986.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $350,000.00 13 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $50,000.00 Maximum Total Compensation $400,000.00 RE~URSABLEEXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopyi.11g, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULT AlW for the foHowing reimbursable expenses at cost Expenses for which CONSULT ANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area; including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $2,986.00 shall be approved in advance by 1he CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to aU requirements and restrictions in this Agreement 14 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 [lm Tatt A.2. frrniiKt lntMIOft a Oftl C011tC:11Don Ta5lU Pn!p~ 8•• M"¥~J Te•A . .C.Fr.atv:eo.-e-.:h l'tln T ... A.S.PNjectMoN .. - ~$.Q,ph,jr.;;,;,u,...;.o...;-.~M--.:.:·· 1.-lt8.1. Stafi/PMject 51teAitWRnen15 rut 8.l.O..:..e16p.l'llt'-10utt8chMittlfotkT.t IU. TAC Met'llng; hs\: 8.4.1nfthi1Commw.lt!r ~ell M~ Ta!k: B.S. CammtJrrltot W•IUIWIIikiRI; fours ~i:[;~ili:"iolh.'~il~l;;;t 'h-5tt..l.~lk•AiwN~ Tl$i: c.l.tomi'!W'I'II!Y Dutte.cfl ~~ 611QJdtA!Idhs Ta.st e..l. Project P'r<IJOAI M•mOft,.tum T"'!t CA. he!entJtiOII of Co'""'"",ilY h'ef¥ted Plen Une ConctCJt !M'I'i'ift.i;;_;~~~ .... :-:-~-:----~~~:~· TMk tU. aQ4 O«um1nttdon T•\ O.l Otv/CotnmllhlltV ~~ 'St:ofrfioan o.rtaCc.-lect•onCounti/VId1n -·-10 ~-& EIJpl>le Travol •••n~l a ,t .... ,ITa\11:\ T•-"-~Burtt~.:rl T•.,tF Addla~~na1froil~fW.$tulltestDS.Gify~ T•4:GOH!Jn0m~ Rof!Hoot< (Opt'.,M(l)llb) EXHIBIT "C-1" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE !·1t;14hl·l.!!.!mr;G] p,.,,r::-cf,ft S#~ret ~osro,.tPro;•d O!argt• rrcjtocn.lo"cfl'i' [flfJflf'U M.:m~r ~ri(JM~ ~0/Gra /C) f'IOMI'' Will·"· 11@1111 Mffllh WJ!l iiji 3i?U 1HIJ " lG rr,l~!! Mi.maQt"f ~MfQI Sandli c~r>o" 2 M~!vrw-y (f'l(Ji"f!tr f.ADOr:rftrfr Cnw Stio!ff St111f Staff Hexacon '''"ClfJQ( Associato<> W;,Hntkl Ou-d;ata OJPA AH.kf!ll'lf Pr~Jkrt Pf•M:ipol Md"'~~' JohnHt"''"' Matt lllil.1nd I Ta<k Hours 1220 14 !a> m 11 • 101 Ta•k Bud«et $17,115'! ·u.-' $41. ... $11,1<> S2,0U S1S.t.tO ----,~-.. ·-:.~:~·~!; ~ .. 344 .~-:J..-;: 2<' 100 ... ea ,,., $15,1100 $•.500 $8,&&> l40 $1',IJO SJ $9,'170 ....... ~-1~~--~·-·· -~ s.. .... , 106 $14,140 2.40 $21.,~0 CO $1,NO · ~: .. -~~~~~::_ .ao :--:-$41~ 1 (6 :;o 265 S.t,I05 25 $c,aoo ~· sa 2491 Ua.I,Ol4 $4$-00Q. qui& $150--.. ,,,, .. no , .... Ill u n __ .at 3!' 41 16_ Dti .o a: SJ.S.a:iS a 20 14 la SS 49 0 IC 00 40 0 ZO l<IQ 0 0 W ~~.COO • Stdf blllf'll: ratu .,. wfhc:ttn ttl~ I:Jeoembl!rlt.1014 and PJbf.cltoftYl.'lon thereafter. Mfl'\l nRedRtaMwlla not .trtct:tot~l bud,et. Do Not exct-ed Corrt'J'ad: Tatal $toa,.OOO l3 Professional Services Rev. Nov. l, 2011 EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIRE"MENTS CONTRACTORSTOTHECITYOFPALOALTO(CITY),ATTHEnlSOLEEXPENSE,SHAiLFOR1HETERMOF11lECON1RACfOBTAIN AND MAINT AlN INSURANCE 'IN niE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPEC:lFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S DY RATING OF A-:Vll, OR mGHER. LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN TAl: STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE Willi CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED I TYPE OF COVERAGE I REQUIREMENT !tACH 'YES YES YES I YES YES I YES I OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STA'IVTORY I EMPLOYER'S llABlllTY STATUTORY i \ BODILY INnJRY I $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAW.AGE S!,OOO,OOO $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTIJAL, AND FlRE LEGAL BODILY iNJURY & PROPE..ItTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 UABllli'Y COM»INPD. BODILY INnJRY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON SI,OO!l,OOO $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE Sl,OOO,OGO $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LlABn.ITY,lNCUJDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-QWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 i $1,000,000 BODD..Y INJURY AND PROPERTY SI,OCO,OOO $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED I PROFESSIONAL UABILITY, INCWDJNG, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPUCABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE AlL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CI1Y OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR. AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHAILOBTAJN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFEcrTHROUGHOtJflliE ENTJRBTERMOF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE "HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOTONL¥ CONTRAcrOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, Btlf ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMI'BNSATJON, EMPLOYER'S UABD.JTY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDlTIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCR.MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVlSTON FOR A WRIITEN nriRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL UABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREE:MHNT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRJ OR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. IlL I!NDORSEMENT PROVISlONS, WllH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARiSING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY TillS POLICY lS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDffiONAL TO OR CONTR.IBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF 1HE ADDffiONAL INSUREDS. 18 Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\A!ta Planoing\CI4151917 Bicycle Boulevzrds\C 14151917 Ccmtract Alta B icyele Boulevards .doc I B. .CROSS LIABILITY 1HE NAMD'IG OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, PIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHAlL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF 1HE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT TillS ENDORSEMENT, AND Tirn NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE TiiE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POIJCY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION l. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER 1HANTiiENON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, Tim ISSUING COMPANY SHAILPROVIDECI1Y AT LEAST A THIR1Y (30) DAY WRITI'EN NOTICE BEFORE llfE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCElLATION. l. lF1liEPOLICYISCANCELEDBEFOREJTSEXPIRATIONDATEFORTIIENON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THEISSUINGCOMPANYSHALLPROVIDECTIY ATLEAST ATEN(lO)DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALOALTO,CA 94303 19 Professional Services RevNov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOWERS\PLANNING-CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\CI41S1917 Bicycle Boulcv!II'ds\C14151917 Contract Alta Bicycle Boulevards .doc ATTACHMENT B SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five Dollars ($390,685.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-1 ",entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,"which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-1 ").If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULT ANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULT ANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality th-atpl"evali among-professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement~ CONSULTANT shall procure ail permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design 2 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULT ANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULT ANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section II above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: NV5 2025 Gateway Place, # 156, San Jose, CA. 95110 ( 408) 392-7200 David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA. 95126 ( 408) 248-3500 Callander Associates 300 South First Street, Ste. 232 San Jose, CA. 95113 (408) 275-0565 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of 3 Professional Services Rev. Nov. l, 2011 the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANTwillassignMattHaynesasthe Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Charlie Alexander as the project manager to represent CONSULT ANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Jaime Rodrigues, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2136. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use except that any pre- existing works created by CONSULTANT outside of the services for CITY but utilized in connection with such services (Pre-existing works) shall continue to be owned by CONSULT ANT. CONSULTANT shall not be liable for modifications to documents which are made with CONSULTANT'S advice after delivery of such documents to CITY nor be liable for their use by CITY in projects other than the Project. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval ofthe City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation ofthe suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULT ANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination ofthis Agreement. SF.CTION 16. INfiF.MNITV 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT sha!l protect, indemnifY, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or 4 Professional Services Rev. Nov. l, 2011 willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULT ANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULT ANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:Vll or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. ________ c<l"8~.3.._. Certificl!Jl:S ~videncing such insurance shall_be filed with CITY concurrently _____ _ with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (I 0) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULT ANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., I 0 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. -The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box i 0250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULT ANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may l:ieamenoeoTrom tiine to time. CONSULTANT shall--complywi!Fi-w-as--;te._ __ _ reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements ofthe City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials. shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in 7 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verity that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will tenninate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at anytime within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, tenn, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25 .!. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be_atlle_nded only by a written instrument, which is_sil,lne<)b)'t!Ie ]Jar(ies. ____ _ 25.5. The covenants, tenns, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in fbll force and effect 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part ofthis Agreement. 8 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security ofthe Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement 9 ---------- Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-1 ": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 Introduction EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY shall contract with CONSULTANT to provide planning, community outreach, conceptual design, and preliminary environmental assessment for the following projects, as specified by Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 151917-Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards: • Barron Park Neighborhood Class III Bicycle Facilities • Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road) • Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Millar Avenue-Del Media Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road) • Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard (Castilleja Avenue toW Charleston Road) • Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard) A. Kick Off Meeting/Baseline Data/Community Outreach Plan Task A.l Kick Off Meeting with City Staff CONSULTANT will fucilitate a kick-off meeting with CITY staff to discuss each respective project's background, deliverables, and anticipated timelines. A key outcome of this meeting will be the community outreach meetings' dates, times, locations, and agendas. Task A.2 Obtain Baseline Data Prior to the kick-off meeting the CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Needs Assessment memorandum that identiftes what available data the CONSULTANT has to begin each project and identifY what CITY -furnished resources are required. The City shall make available GIS-based data including right-of-way interest, CITY- maintained utilities, parcel/subdivision maps, and current traffic data information from its 2013 Traffix Existing Conditions files. As part of the Needs Assessment memorandum the CONSULTANT will identifY recommended locations where additional video-based counts to collect bicycle/pedestrian data, mechanical tube counters to collect vehicle speed/occupancy data, manual turning movement counts for Level of Service calculations, and Parking Studies for project impact assessment should be collected. Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULTANT upon approval by CITY as described in Task C.!. . _c:;ITY and p~rl!l<Of_age11cies will assist the CONSULTANT team in obtaining record drawings, right,of way and parcel maps, records of survey, parcel and subdivision maps, available utility maps, utility plans, assessor's maps, and any available survey information in ArcGIS or AutoCAD format. Task A.3 Prepare Study Base Maps Based on the available data from Task A.2, CONSULTANT shall prepare study base maps with aerial background to help guide in the development of concept plan lines for presentation to the community. The CONSULTANT shall budget 160 hours of surveying time to prepare basemaps that identifY existing curb limits, face-of-curb, back-of-walk, park strip limits, visible utilities, streetlights, standard highway signs, and reft:nmct: monuments. The study basemaps should be available ln CAD format (.DViG) and scaied to formai suitable for both planning and preliminary engineering concepts (e.g., I"= 20'). To assist in the development of the study base maps the CONSULTANT shall conduct a field inventory of each project corridor photographing and noting field conditions that may impact design concepts for each project. CONSULTANT shall use available aerial imagery for the study base maps. II Professional Services Rev.Nov.1,2011 At locations where major civil improvements may be anticipated, such as new traffic signals, traffic circles, or intersection reconfigurations, the study base maps should include cross-streets at these locations up to 250-FT per approach of each side street to assist CONSULT ANT in developing proper concept plan line renderings for review by the community. Task A.4 Finalize Public Outreach Plan CONSULTANT shall prepare a detailed project schedule outlining the agreed upon public outreach plan from Task A.l including milestone targets for community meetings, field inventories, community walkabouts, community ride-a-longs. This outreach plan schedule will be maintained by the CONSUL TANTand updated regularly. Task A.5 Project Management Throughout the planning process, CONSULTANT will be in regular contact with CITY to keep CITY staff apprised of the project effort and to seek input at key decision points. CONSULTANT will attend monthly Technical Advisory Committee meetings (Task B.3) on a monthly basis and will check-in with CITY staff on a bi-weekly basis in-person or via conference call. CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes covering the discussion items. With each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT'S project manager will provide a progress report that summarizes task budget expended, estimated percent of task completion, and a 30 day "look ahead" of upcoming project milestones. CONSULTANT will employ a two-tier quality control system for all major deliverables that includes (I) peer review, and (2) independent review by principals. Advanced design concepts and cost estimates will be reviewed by a licensed civil or traffic engineer before distribution to CITY, with complex engineering challenges receiving multiple reviews by specialists. Task A Deliverables • Project Team Meeting #l: Project Kick-offagenda and notes • Data Needs Memorandum • Study Base Maps • Preliminary Public Outreach Plan B. ONGOING COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Task B.l Staff/Project Site Assessments Distinct from the project kick-off meeting, CONSULTANT and CITY will organize and participate in a bicycle ride-a-long of each of the project corridors with select community members to help in early --identification-ofpotential areas of concern for each project (up to 5 ride-a" longs total).-CITY will identifY the appropriate ride-a-long participants but the CONSULT ANT shall develop outreach materials including flyers. Task B.2 Develop Initial Outreach Materials CONSULTANT shall develop a suite of initial outreach materials for each project for review and approval by CITY, including: • Project Website Web Content: including project descriptions, project maps, and scheduling details. As meetings or milestones are reached:; the CONS I IT TA NT ~hall be responsible for updating this data and providing it to CITY for placement on CITY websites. • Project Information and Event Fliers/Posters: Template documents specific to each project corridor that can be easily modified to project events and released to the public. 12 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 • Best Practices Presentation: An education slideshow that can be provided on the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard projects website and used at community meetings to educate the public regarding base practice treatments that may be appropriate for use in CITY. • Initial Community Workshop Boards/Presentations Workshop boards will take advantage of Study Base Maps developed in Task A. Task B.3 Technical Advisory Committee CONSULTANT shall be required to participate in monthly Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings comprised of various representative of CITY. The TAC will be attendant by consultants working on other projects in CITY and will serve as a forum to CONSULTANT to receive preliminary feedback on presentation materials and design concepts. CITY will organize the TAC separately and notif'y the CONSULTANT of meeting recurrences. The TAC may include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), CITY-School Traffic Safety Committee Partnership, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), CITY Council, and private sector interests. CITY anticipates up to 15 TAC meetings through the life ofthis project. The CONSULTANT shall attend each TAC meeting. Task B.4 Initial Community Outreach Meeting For each proposed project, CONSULTANT will host an initial community outreach meeting to gather input and feedback from community members about the project (up to 5 community outreach meetings total). The CONSULTANT will present educational materials on bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway measures that may be appropriate for each proposed project. Prior to the community outreach meetings, CONSULTANT will complete basic data collection and mapping for each proposed project corridor, including intersection traffic control and existing traffic calming features. CONSULTANT will develop all presentation materials, lead the community outreach process, and serve as note-taker. The community outreach meeting will serve as an opportunity for the CONSULTANT to solicit public interest in the project and to help better understand and document areas of concern, identif'y additional areas offocused traffic data collection and design strategies. CITY will identif'y meeting locations and procure meeting space and advertise the community outreach materials developed by the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will develop content for each project website and update the site monthly or following any community outreach meetings. _Task-B.5 Walking/Biking Tours CONSULTANT shall participate in at least one citywide walking or biking tour of each project site to help educate community members regarding the proposed projects, solicit additional community input to help develop concept plan line concepts, and validate design assumptions (up to 5 walking or biking tours total). The CONSULTANT shall develop marketing materials for each event and the CITY will advertise them. Task B.6 ArcGIS for Server Outreach Tool CONSULTANT will develop a web-based community outreach tool using ArcGlS for Server. The tool will feature an interactive GIS-based aerial map of the five (5) project corridors and up to ten (10) additional project corridors where similar bicycle boulevard work is being completed in CITY but by difterent consultants. Using the tool, community members will identif'y common issues and suggested improvements. The tool will be hosted on each project website developed and maintained by the CONSULTANT. Additional project corridors web sites will be maintained separately but the ArcGIS for Server tool will be maintained by the CONSULTANT for all projects in CITY. 13 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 CONSULT ANT will be responsible for analyzing and summarizing data collected using the web-based community outreach tool for its five (5) project corridors. For project being developed by other consultants, the CONSULTANT will only be responsible for providing the raw data collected from the tool but also provide technical assistance if needed in initial format of the data. C. CONCEPT PLAN LINE DEVELOPMENT Task C.l-Concept Plan Line Development Following the initial community outreach meetings, CONSULT ANT will collect all remaining traffic data for the project and use the traffic data and prepare up to three (3) concept plan line options that respond to the community's input and address the fundamentals of bicycle boulevard or enhanced bikeway design. Following the initial community outreach meetings, data collection locations will be finalized from Task A.2 but traffic data collection may include: • Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations) • Seven days of bicyclist/pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality; for each project, one count will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, hehnet use)-(up to 15 locations) • Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total) The concept plan line options will be prepared at a schematic design level suitable for future development of 35 percent design plans, but formatted in a way that can be easily understood by the public. The concept plan line options will show proposed civil engineering improvements, pavement markings, signage, and other traffic control treatments. Based on the traffic data collection, the CONSULTANT will estimate the range of potential future usage of each facility. CONSULTANT will also present the concept plan line options at regularly scheduled TAC meetings for additional input. Task C.2-Community Outreach Meetings and Bicycling Audits For each proposed project, CONSULTANT will host two community outreach meetings to present the concept plan line options (up to 10 community outreach meetings total). Per Task B.5, CONSULTANT will also participate in one bicycling audit of the project corridor for select residents identified by CITY staff. Feedback from the community outreach meetings and bicycling audit will be used to refine a community-preferred concept plan line alternative for the project. CONSULTANT may be asked to participate in the regularly scheduled meetings of residential neighborhood groups, in lieu of separate outreach meetings. -In aneffort~tostrearnline the community outreach process, CONSULTANT may be asked to participate in consolidated outreach efforts that target multiple residential neighborhood groups of the community. Task C.3-Project Proposal Memorandum CONSULT ANT will develop up to two (2) community-preferred concept plan lines based on input received through the community outreach meetings. The first community-preferred concept plan lines may be a near- term plan that allows for immediately implementation of the project through minor signage & striping changes along with minor traffic control changes such as stop-control removals with minor traffic calming mitigation. The second community-preferred concept plan line may provide long-term improvement options such as woonerf improvements, grade-separate cycletrack facilities, sidewalk widening or intersection bulb-outs, etc. The CONSULTANT will prepare a Project Proposal Memorandum that describes the project's proposed improvements, environmental tradeoffs, preliminary impacts, preliminary construction costs, and preliminary mitigation for environmental assessment. The Project Proposal Memorandum should include a summary of community outreach and input. The memorandum will be used in staff reports update the Planning & 14 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 Transportation Commission, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and CITY Council on how the project was developed. The memorandum will also be posted on the project website. Task C.4-Presentation of Community Preferred Plan Line Concept CONSULTANT will present the community-preferred concept plan line to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and CITY Council along with supporting traffic data findings and cost estimates. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STUDY Task D.l-California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documentation The CONSULTANT's Environmental Team Member will provide input to the team on the tradeoffs between the various alternatives that are developed and the implications of the alternatives for the schedule and extent of environmental review. These findings shall be documented within the Project Proposal Memorandum. Assuming Categorical Exemption findings are appropriate for each individual project, the CONSULTANT shall prepare the appropriate environmental documents for review and approval by CITY. The CONSULTANT should assume a minimum traffic report that studies potential stop-control removals and discussions regarding the operations of the bicycle boulevard. The traffic study should also be able to account for minor traffic calming measures such as traffic hump installations or other minor roadway deflection tools. If any project includes elements that require additional environmental reports necessary to satisfY factors CEQA, the CONSULTANT should identity those additional studies for inclusion in future phases of the project (i.e., traffic studies analyze roadway closures or rerouting of traffic onto other streets because of select or approach closures. These more significant environmental assessment studies will be completed in the future PS&E stages of the project. Based on the information available at this time, CITY anticipates that the proposed Bicycle Boulevard and Enhanced Bikeway Facilities will qualifY for a Class 4(h) Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(h). The CONSULTANT will be responsible for preparing and filing the CEQA Notice of Exemption at the conclusion of this phase of work. Task D.2-Community Outreach Meeting CONSULT ANT will attend a community meeting to provide background information about the environmental review process and answer questions from the public, as needed. CITY anticipates this meeting be either a Planning & Transportation Commission meeting or a CITY Council meeting to take advantage of other project meetings. E. PLANS SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line by CITY and CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award of additional contracts will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY anticipate direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects identified in this contract pending the successful completion of the Planning & Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement. E. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall be available to provide Additional Services to CITY including, but not limited to: • Grant Writing • Additional Community Outreach Meeting • Focused Traffic or Parking Studies to satisfY CEQA • Graphics Development CITY and CONSULTANT shall discuss each Additional Task in writing and identity a cost for each service prior to commencement of work. 15 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Milestones I. Kick Off Meeting 2. Baseline Maps 3. Community Outreach 4. Technical Advisory Committee 5. Conceptual Plan lines 16 Completion No. of Days/Weeks/Months From NTP 30 Days 90 Days 12Months 18 Months 12 Months Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-I up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $390,685.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $450,000.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. 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 $390,685.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $450,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task I $64,890.00 (Kick Off Meeting Community Outreach) Task2 $117,420.00 (Ongoing Community & Stakeholder Outreach) Task 3 $180,400.00 (Concept Plan Line Development) Task4 $27,975.00 (Environmental Analysis Study) Task 5 TBD (Plans, Specifications & Estimates) Sub-total Basic Services $390,685.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $390,685.00 17 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $59,315.00 Maximum Total Compensation $450,000.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City ofPalo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement 18 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 o , 0 I o 1 o I o o I o 1 o I ' 1 o I ' I 0 I • I o I• I. ,, I • 1 o " I ' I o 1£ EXHffiiT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITHAM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S UABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERlY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $!,000,000 BODll. Y INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 . THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABIIIfY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN TillRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $100,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. Ill. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. 20 Professional Services RevNov.1,2011 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 21 Professional Services RevNov.1,20ll ATTACHMENT C SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Forty Dollars ($249,040.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000.00).The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-1 ", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-1 ").If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULT ANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULT ANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULT ANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULT ANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the san1e or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with aU federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives 2 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 notice to CONSULTANT. IfCONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULT ANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULT ANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULT ANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULT ANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULT ANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULT ANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Alta Planning+ Design 2560 9th Street, Suite 212 Berkeley, Ca. 94710 (51 0)540-5008 Circlepoint 1814 Franklin Street, Ste. 1000 Oakland, Ca. 94612 (51 0)285-6700 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULT ANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign JeffSetera as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution 3 Professional Services Rev. Nov.l,2011 of the Services and Ron Sanzo as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day- to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULT ANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Jaime Rodriguez, Planning & Community Environmental Department, Planning Transportation Division, 245 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 329-2136, e-mail; Jaime.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation ofthe work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULT ANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULT ANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULT ANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive 4 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other tenn, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-: VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State ofCalifomia. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULT ANT, CONSULT ANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULT ANT1S liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19 .1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (1 0) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULT ANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULT ANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 1 0250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULT ANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULT ANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Govenunent Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULT ANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.51 0, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Envirorunentally PrefetTed Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULT ANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 3 0% or greater post -consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Envirorunental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will tenninate without any penalty (a) 7 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULT ANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULT ANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 8 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed :in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement 9 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEY SPLANNERS City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~1&1 fk. ~~, p,[ 4 Title: Vll4 f Mb ~ t ~1\t '{: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-1 ": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULT ANT shall provide services for the development of the Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements. The project includes the following elements: 1. Plan Line Concepts and PEER/Encroachment Permit: CONSULTANT to detennine the community- preferred alignment and improvements along the corridor and to coordinate closely with Cal trans and CITY for development of innovative intersection treatments at the El Camino Real & Churchill A venue intersection. At the El Camino Real & Churchill A venue intersection CITY seeks capacity improvements along Churchill Avenue as well as project elements to better facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements across the intersection as well as transit improvements that will need to be coordinated by the CONSULTANT with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)-Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. The CONSULT ANT will also be require to coordination with Stanford University to coordination of project improvements with their Stanford Perimeter Trail Project-El Camino Real segment and with the Palo Alto Unified School District for right-of-way interest and operations improvements to their district offices located at 25 Churchill A venue and Palo Alto High School. 2. Environmental Analysis Study: CONSULTANT shall prepare an environmental analysis/assessment for the community-preferred project aligrunent developed as part of Task I including any studies required by CITY as part of the improvements for the El Camino Real & Churchill A venue intersection. It is assumed that the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) submitted to Cal trans during Stage 1 will be approved. The CONSULT ANT shall prepare a focused traffic study to identify appropriate intersection capacity treatments including the need for a micro simulation model for use as part of the community outreach process for the project. 3. Development of Plans, Specifications & Engineer's Estimate 's: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the development of PS&E for project including: traffic signal modifications, street lighting improvements, sidewalk realignment and widening, drainage improvements, signage & striping, innovative bicycle treatments, traffic calming elements, landscaping, wayfmding, and transit improvements. 4. Additional Service: CONSULTANT shall provide as-needed support during the project life to assist CITY in implementation of the project including, but not limited to: grant writing support and bidding assistance should additional funding be identified for construction. Scope of Work Stage 1 -Concept Plan Lines & Permit Engi.Ju!ering Eval11ation Report/Encroachment Permit CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the development of concept plan line alternatives for the Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvement Project for the consideration of the Palo Alto community. CONSULTANT shall participate in Community Outreach meetings to identify or further develop one of the alternatives into a Community Preferred Alignment Alternative. CITY anticipates identifying up to three alignment alternatives for consideration of the community before fmalizing a Community Preferred Alignment that will be advanced and submitted with an Encroachment Permit and Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) to Caltrans. Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 CONSULT ANT will be responsible for outreach to and organizing meetings with the following agencies: Palo Alto Community, Caltrans, Stanford University, and Palo Alto Unified School District. CONSULT ANT shall take into account the following Design Considerations as part of the development of Plan Line Concept Alternatives: • Utilities (Above and Below Ground) • Real Property Acquisition (Temporary Construction Easements and Design) • Safety • Walk-ability, Bicycle Ride-ability, and Transit Connectivity • Adjacent Public Facilities or Facilities of Interest such as Palo Alto High School, Stanford University, Town & Country Shopping Center, and connection with existing and planned Bicycle Routes • Project Mitigations to protect the Quality of Life for existing residential properties adjacent to the proposed project area including the South Gate Neighborhood located south of Churchill A venue between the Caltrain Tracks to the East, El Camino Real to the west, and Stanford Avenue to the South • Cost After development of a Community Preferred Alignment Alternative for the Churchill A venue Corridor Improvement project the CONSULTANT shall begin coordination with Caltrans. CONSULTANT is proposing to submit a Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) with the initial encroachment permit application. Upon successful approval of the PEER with Caltrans the CONSULTANT will present the fmdings of the PEER to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC), Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), Palo Alto Unified School District (P AUSD)-Board ofDirectors, and CITY Council for fmal approvaL CONSULTANT shall be required to participate in the following community outreach meetings during this stage: • Three (3) community outreach meetings • Two (2) Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings • Two (2) Palo Alto Unified School District meetings • One ( 1) City-School Traffic Safety Committee meeting • Two (2) PTC meetings, and • One {1) City Council meeting. CITY will be responsible for securing community meeting facilities. CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for the preparation of all outreach materials, including media ads to be coordinated for publication by CITY, meeting notice flyers for mailing to residents by CITY, and conununity meeting presentations. The CONSULTANT shall also serve as Scribe at all community. Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 Deliverables for Stage 1 should include the following items: • 1 0% Design -Concept Plan Line Alignments • Preliminary Cost Estimates for alignment alternatives • Identifying of Probable Impact and Mitigation Alternatives for neighborhood Quality of Life preservation • Final Caltrans Approved Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) Stage 2 -Environmental Analysis St11dv Upon approval of the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) by Caltrans, review and approval of required Environmental Analysis Studies will be transitioned over to CITY. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the development of the appropriate Environmental Analysis Studies required by CITY. The CONSULT ANT team includes an additional environmental CONSULT ANT to provide oversight/input on Environmental Analysis component of project. CONSULTANT, as part of the Environmental Analysis, shall also be responsible for advancing the Community Preferred Concept Plan Line alternative into a 35% design stage. It is assumed that the following technical studies will be required as part of the Environment Analysis component of this project: • Biological Resources • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Transportation/Traffic • Cultural Resources • Hydrology/Water Quality • Noise • Air Quality/Green House Gas Emissions • Preliminary Geotechnical Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 20 II The CONSULT ANT's Team shall also identify any pennits required from State and Federal Regulatory Agencies (e.g., Caltrans, State Fish & Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.). CONSULTANT will be required to participate in the following conununity outreach meetings during this stage: • Three (3) Conununity Outreach Meetings • One (1) Study Session Planning & Transportation Conunission • One (1) Study Session City Council • One (1) Presentation-Planning PAUSD Board of Directors • One ( 1) Presentation/ Approval -Palo Alto City Council CITY will be responsible for securing co nun unity meeting facilities. CONSULT ANT shaH be responsible for the preparation of all outreach materials, including media ads to be coordinated for publication by CITY, meeting notice flyers for mailing to residents by CITY, and conununity meeting presentations. The CONSULT ANT shall also serve as Scribe at all conununity. Deliverables for the Environmental Analysis stage for this project shall also include the following elements: • Final Environmental Assessment reports required by CITY of Palo Alto • 35%PS&E • Project architectural renderings of key improvements areas such as the El Camino Real & Churchill A venue and Churchill A venue & Castilleja intersections Stage 3 -Development ofPlans, Specificatious and Engi11eer's Estimtttes Upon approval of the Final Environmental Report for the Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements project, the CONSULT ANT shall proceed to prepare final plans, specifications, and engineer's estimates for the construction of the project. The improvement plans shall include the following civil details prepared by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer with good standing with the State of California: • Cover Sheet • Project Notes • Project Plan and Profile • Demolition Plans • Plan Details for Improvements, including but not limited to: o Multi-Use Trail Sections o Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings o Accessible Pedestrian Ramps o Drainage Plans o Transit Station Plans o Landscape Improvement Plans o Signage & Striping Plans o Traffic Signal and Street lighting Improvement Plans o Utility Preservation and Connections o Utility Plans o Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan o Construction Staging Plan Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 • Project Specifications consistent with Palo Alto Standard Specifications and Special Provisions to match the Project Improvement Plan requirements • CONSULTANT shall provide 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% Engineer's Estimates based on improvement plans and comparable bids for similar projects to ensure the project remains within the project budget (CITY may elect to hire an outside Construction Management (CM) finn for Value Engineering and outside PEER review. CONSULT ANT shall be expected to work with CM cooperatively.) CONSULTANT shall apply for and complete all fonns required from Caltrans for design exemption and encroachment pennits. CONSULT ANT shall submit detailed schedule based on the improvements plans to CITY and should to include the following tasks: • Base 35% Plans Revised from Environmental Process o Community Outreach Meeting to Identify Landscape/Hardscape and Streetscape palette o Study Session with Architectural Review Board for approval of shrub and tree planting palettes and decorative pavement treatments recommended by the Project Landscape Architect and Project Engineer • 65% Improvement Plans o Final Community Outreach Meeting • 95% Check Print Plan Set o Presentation of Project to Parks & Recreation Commission o Presentation of Project to Planning & Transportation Commission • 1 00% Bid Set o City Council Presentation of Final Project Meetings with CITY staff for the review of design plans, specifications and construction staging shall be held on- site on a monthly basis. CITY will be responsible for securing community meeting facilities. The CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for the preparation of all outreach materials, including media ads to be coordinated for publication by CITY, meeting notice flyers for mailing to residents by CITY, and community meeting presentations. The CONSULTANT shall also serve as Scribe at all community meetings and provide CITY with Meeting Notes and Action Notes within 5-business days of each meeting. CITY anticipates procurement of an outside Construction Management Finn during this stage to assist the CITY in reviewing plans prepared by the CONSULT ANT and to conduct Value Engineering alternatives to ensure that the project remains on-budget. The CONSULT ANT will be required to work with the CONSULT ANT Management Finn during the development of the plans. Deliverables for the Development of PS&E stage for this project shall also include the following elements: • 1 00% PS&E Bid Package • Procurement of all necessary encroachment penn its to allow for the construction of the project Stage 4 -Additional Services CONSULTANT shall provide On Call Support Services during the design of the project to assist CITY in pursuing grant funding for construction, architectural renderings, or other services as necessary to successfully implement the project. Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULT ANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones 1. Stage 1 -Concept Plan Lines & Permit Engineering Evaluation Report/Encroachment Permit 2. Stage 2 -Environmental Analysis Study 3. Stage 3 -Development of Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimates 4. Stage 4-Additional Services Completion No. ofDays/Weeks FromNTP TBD TBD TBD TBD Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 EXIDBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit •'A" C'Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $249,040.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $275,000.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULT ANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. 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 $249,040.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $275,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task 1 (Stage 1 -Concept Plan Lines & Permit Engineering Evaluation Report/Encroachment Permit) Task2 (Stage 2-Environmental Analysis Study) Task3 (Stage 3 -Development of Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimates) Task4 (Stage 4-Additional Services) Sub-total Basic Services Reimbursable Expenses Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $53,585.00 $95,240.00 $69,725.00 $25,690.00 $244,240.00 $4,800.00 $249,040.00 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) Maximum Total Compensation $275,000.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULT ANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $4,800.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULT ANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULT ANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 Scope Stage 1 • Concept Design/PEER/Encroachment Permit Application TOTAl NOT TO EXCEED, STAGE 1 Stage 2 · Environmental Analysis Study TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, STAGE 2 Stage 3 · Development of Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimates EXHIBIT "C-1" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Labor Categories (e.g., Consultant, Sr. Consultant, etc.) SAND IS Jeff Seter a, PE, PIC Ron Sanzo, PE, Project Manager Bruce Davis, PE, Transportation Engineer Nate Allen, PE, Project Er>gineer Jenner Philips, Design Engineer Shaun Carberry, AutoCAD Drafter Andrew Chafer, PLS, Senior Project Surveyor 2·Man Survey Crew Utility Locator Traffic Count Staff Reimbursables Alta Planning+ Design Casey Hildreth, PM/Mobility Planner /Outreach Nora Daley Peng. Senior Landscape Architect Mary Stewart, Deslgn/Signage/Graphlcs Brian Burchfield, CAD and Outreach Assistance Relmbursables SAN DIS Jeff Seter a, PE, PIC Ron Sanzo, PE, Project Manager Bruce Davis, PE, Transportation Engineer Nate Allen, PE, Project Engineer Jenner Philips, Design Engineer Shaun Carberry, Auto CAD Drafter Andrew Chafer, PLS, Senior Project Surveyor 2·Man Survey Crew Traffic Count Staff Reimbursables First Carbon Solutions Mary Bean, Director Clrclepolnt Scott Steinwert, PIC Jennifer Gallerani Marquez, PM Assistant Planner Graphic Designer Reimbursables Estimate lor Technical Studies assumed to be required Alta Planning+ Design Casey Hildreth, PM/Mobllltv Planner /Outreach Nora Daley Peng, Senior Landscape Architect Mary Stewart, Oesign/Signage/Graphics Brian Burchfield, CAD & Outreach Assistance Reimbursables SAN DIS JeffSetera, PE, PIC Ron Sanzo, PE, Project Manager Bruce Davis, PE, Transportation Engineer Nate Allen, P€, Project Engineer Jenner Philips, Design Engineer Shaun Carberry, Auto CAD Drafter Andrew Chafer, PLS, Senior Project Surveyor 2-Man Survey Crew Est. Hours 4 56 48 0 48 48 8 40 8 0 75 16 32 40 1 60 48 24 12 12 10 32 84 200 24 40 24 32 so 4 48 60 72 120 120 4 8 Hourly Extended Rate Rate $250 $1,000 $140 $7,840 $115 $5,520 $105 $0 $95 $4,560 $85 $4,080 $140 $1,120 $215 $8,600 $1SO $1,200 $50 so ssoo $135 $10,125 $155 $2,480 $105 $3,360 $85 $3,400 $400 $54,485 $250 $250 $140 $8.400 $115 $5,520 $105 so $95 $2,280 $85 $1,020 $140 $0 $215 $0 $50 $600 $500 $220 $2,200 $240 $7,680 $140 $11,760 $75 $15,000 $75 $1,800 $500 $22,000 $135 $5,400 $155 $3,720 $105 $3,360 $85 $4,250 $400 $96,640 $250 $1,000 $140 $6,720 $115 $6,900 $105 $7,560 $95 $11,400 $85 $10,200 $140 $560 $215 $1,720 Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 Traffic Count Staff Reimbursables Alta Planning+ Design Casey Hildreth, PM/Mobilitv Planner/Outreach Nora Daley Peng, Senior Landscape Architect Mary Stewart, Landscape/Signage/Bikeshare Designer Brian Burchfield, CAD Randy Anderson, ONO.C (PIC I Reimbursables TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, STAGE 3 Scope Labor Categories (e.g., Consultant. Sr. Consultant, etc.J SAN DIS Stage 4 -Additional Services Jeff Setera, PE, PIC Ron Sanzo, PE, Project Manager Bruce Davis, PE, Transportation Engineer Nate Allen, PE, Project Engineer Jenner Philips, Design Engineer Shaun Carberry, Auto CAD Or after Andrew Chafer, PLS, Senior Project Surveyor 2-ManSurvey Crew Traffic Count Staff Reimbursables Alta Planning+ Design Brian Burchfield, Bid and CM support Nora Daley Pen g. Bid and CM support Casey Hildreth, Grant Assistance On-Call Reimbursables TOTAL NOTTO EXCEED, STAGE4 $50 so $1,000 32 $135 $4,320 32 $155 $4,960 40 $105 $4,200 85 $85 $7,225 16 $185 $2,960 $500 $71,225 £st. Hourly Extended Hours Rate Rate 4 32 24 16 40 32 32 16 30 Total Alta Fee: Total Citclepoint fee: Total SANOIS Fee: Total First Carbon Fee: $71,110 $58,740 $116,990 $2,200 $250 $140 $115 $105 $95 $85 $140 $215 $50 $85 $155 $135 $1,000 $4,480 $2,760 $1,680 $3,800 $2,720 so so so $500 $2,720 $2,480 $4,050 $500 $26,690 Total Team Fee: I $249,0401 Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF'THE CONTRACTOBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FORTH E COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER. LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQO I REI~ENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 SI,OOO,OOO GENERAL LlABILITY, INClUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 SI,OOO,OOO PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LlABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 s 1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE. COMBINED PROFESSIONAL UABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MAlJ>RACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL iNSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAJNTAJN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUTTHE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, lF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMiNG AS ADDITlONAL INSUREDS CITY, lTS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITIEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM. OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING Of MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PA YMENTOF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (I 0) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 ATTACHMENT D SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three HWidred Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($3 06,3 7 6. 00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Tbree Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five Dollars ($369,445.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-1 ",entitled "HOURLYRATESCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is detennined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who perfonned the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULT ANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-1 "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULT ANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process ~d pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULT ANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perf01m the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar know ledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION?. COMPLIANCEWITHLAWS. CONSULTANTshallkeepitselfinformedofand in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, ·and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement.. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and 4 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATJONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOI.DERS\PLANNING-CHRJS\CONTRACTSWta Plwming\C!4!50007 Matadcro Creek Traii\C14150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CTIY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULT ANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive tennination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULT ANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (1 0%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULT ANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligni"lg the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CTIY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULT ANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULT ANT are material considerations fur this Agreement CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULT ANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsulta.nts may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 636 9th Street Oakland, California, 94607 Telephone Number (510) 590-3421 HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 111 W. Saint John Street San Jose, CA. 95113 Telephone, (408) 971-6100 CIRCLEPOINT 1814 Franklin St #1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone (510) 285-6700 BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES s Ptofessior,al Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNJNO-CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta PIIID!ling\C141 50007 Matadero Creel Trai1\Cl4! 50007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc 865 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone (408) 296-5515 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULT ANT shall change or add sub consultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Randy Anderson as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Casey Hildreth as the project manager to represent CONSULT ANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. H circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY fmds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Jaime Rodrigues, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2136. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULT ANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULT ANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, atanyreasonabletimeduring the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULT ANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDERS\PLANNlNG -CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\C14150007 Matadero Creek Trail\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc 16.1. To the fullest extent pennitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnity, defend and hold ha.rrnJess CITY, its Council members, officers,. employees and agents (each an ''Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, i.'l.cluding all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULT ANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an fudemni.fied Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions ofthis Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, conditio~ provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSUR.Al~CE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, atitssolecostand expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULT ANT and im contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain. in full force and effect dwing the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (3 0) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If t..lte insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less tha11 thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSl.JLTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT's receipt of such 5 Professior:al Services Rev. Nov. I, 201 1 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCffA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDERS \PLANNING • CHRJS\CONTR.t\CTSWia Planning\C14l50007 Matade10 Creek T::ail\C14150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc notice. CONSULTANT shall be. responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSlJL T ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSl.J'LTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injUry, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Service~ performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TER,M[NATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the perfonnance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten ( 1 0) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULT ANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULTANT may terrrrinate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. · 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, or given to ·CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULT ANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULT ANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov.!. 201 J S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDERS\PLANNING-CJ{RIS\CON1'RACTSWta Planning\CI4150007 Matadero Creek Traii\Cl41 50007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 1 0250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULT ANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULT ANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULT ANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defmed by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULT ANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate fmancial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULT ANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof: and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULT ANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated fi:om a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, 7 Professional Se:viees Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNJNG-CHIUS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\Cl4150007 Matadero Creek Tmii\CI4150007 Qlntract Alta Matade:-o Creek .doc reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimwn of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on ftle at the Purchasing Office. • Reusablelretwnable pallets shaJl be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, tenn, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. :MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25 .1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25 .2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state cow1s of California in the County of Santa Clar~ State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This docume:r;tt may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, tenns, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this 8 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOI.JCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING • CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Aita Pianning\Cl4150007 Matadero Creek Traii\CI4150()07 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force arid effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, maybe referred to in any duly executed amend..."'lent hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be ·a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULT ANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5( d) about a California resident ("Personal Infonnation"), CONSULT ANT shall ma!ntain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning thatthere has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the. Personal Information. CONSULT ANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.1 0 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement 9 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER...CM FOLDERS\PLANNING-CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Aita Planning\C14150007 Matadcro Creek Trail\Cl 4150007 Cootmct Alta Matadero Creek .doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ALTA PLANNING+ DESIGN By:~~ City Manager Name: 'Br~ H.~rr Title: ?n 11\.(..' r··.A APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-1": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION · SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNJNG • CHRIS\CONTRACTSWte Planniog\CI4150007 Matadero Creek Traii\C14150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Introduction EXJHBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY shaH contract with CON:SULT A.l\fT to complete the development of the Matadero Creek Trail -Phase 1 Midtown project. The scope of this project includes the development of a Feasibility Study and Prelimi.."1.my Environm~tal Assessment to help guide decisions on ultimate alignment of the project Following council approval of the Feasibility Study CITY shall enter into negotiations with CONSULTANT to advance future phases of the project, including Final PS&E and Final Environmental Assessment. STAGE 1 Feasibility Study Task 1. Project Startup 1.1 Project Kick-off Meeting The CONSULTANT will facilitate a Project Kickoff Meeting with CITY to do the following: Introduce key CITY staff and CONSULT ANT team members Review objectives of the Matadero Creek Trail -Phase 1 Midtown Project Confirm study area Review scope of services Review available data and published materials, confirm outstanding data needs Establish meeting and presentation schedule Establish communication protocols between the team and stakeholders and CITY Discuss applicable design criteria/standards Changes to the Work Program will be made (ifnecessacy) at the conclusionofthis effort, and a more detailed and refined Work Program and Schedule will he submitted to CITY Project Manager. 1.2 Obtain Baseline Data Prior to the Project Kickoff Meeting, Alta will provide CITY a draft data needs memorandum that identifies existing (Alta held) data, data to be provided by CITY if available, and data to be provided by subconsultants/collected in field. CITY will provide any GIS information related to right-of-way interest, parcel and subdivision maps, and CTIY -maintained utilities. Any CAD files for the project area that CITY has, and current traffic data information from its 2013 Traflix Existing Conditions files, and will be made available to CONSULTANT. As part of the Needs Assessment memorandum the CONSULTANT will identify recommended locations where additional video-based counts to collect bicycle/pedestrian data, mechanical tube counters to collect vehicle speed/occupancy data, manual turning movement counts for Level of II Professional Selvices Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOllClrATIONS\CURRENT BUYER.CM POlDERS\Pl.ANNING • CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\C141S0007 Matadero Creek Trail\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Service calculations, and Parking Studies for project impact assessment should be collected. Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULTANT upon approval by CITY. The CONSULTANT shall budget up to 12 days of survey (2-person crew) to assist in base map development and additional utility location to be focused along the Matadero Creek maintenance road corridor. 1.3 Prepare Study Base Maps CONSULTANT will expand and refine base mapping for the project using new/updated data provided in Task 1.2. The base map series will be at a suitable scale for planning 8nd conceptual engineering (e.g. 1" = 40') using GIS and AutoCAD information, with additional detail (e.g. 1"=20') developed for the creek maintenance road corridor and select intersections/potential pathways to assist with preliminary engineering. The CONSULT ANT will conduct field inventory of trail corridor and potential crossing alignments (road and drainages), photographing and noting conditions. CONSULTANT will compare field notes, photographs, and drawings with maps, aerial photos, and other documents to .ensure that the base maps accurately reflect existing conditions. Field measurements will provide planning-level infonnation for cross sections and improvement alternatives, and subsequent quantity and cost estimates. The field survey/ base maps for trail alternatives will be delivered to CTIY in electronic format (.DWG) along with a report summarizing the field assessment in both .PDF and .AI or .DOC format. CITY will review and approve the base maps for development of the existing conditions report and use for initial public outreach and preliminary concept designs. 1.4·Finalize Public Outreach Plan A critical element of the feasibility study scope is the community outreach plan and related schedule. The CONSULTANT will work with CITY staff, and attend a separate meeting if necessary, to review and confum outreach tasks and process requirements before stakeholder engagement begins. Task 1.0 Deliverables Project Team Meeting #1: Project Kick-off, agenda and notes Data Needs Request Memorandum Video/Tube Counts (estimated 10 locations) Initial topographic survey (up to 12 days) Base Maps for Study Area, Preliminary Trail Alignment Alternatives (1" :::;;:: 40' scale, 1"=20'scale) Final COmmunity Outreach Plan Task 2. Ongoing Community and Stakeholder Outreach 2.1 Staff/Project Team Site Walk . Distinct from the project kickoff meeting and community-based tours (see Task 2.3). CONSULT ANT will organize and lead a field investigation of the Matadero Creek corridor with key Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 12 8:\ASD\PURCH\SOL!CIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNINO -CHRIS\CON1RACTS\Aita Planning\C 14 I 50007 Matadero Creek TT'Ilii\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc SCVWD Engineering and Maintenance staff and CTIY staff. The purpose of the site walk will be to flag key issues/constraints related to SCVWD maintenance routes, activities, and needs; and to propose early concept designs for Water District consideration. Although the general public would not be invited, information from this walk will be presented during the initial outreach activities described in Tasks 2.2-2.5. 2.2 Develop Initial Outreach Materials The CONSULT ANT will develop a suite of initial. outreach materials for CITY review and approval, including: Project Logo/Graphic Template o Up to three initial optionsJ with up to two rounds of revision based on a single set of consolidated and internally consistent comments Project Website I Web Content o For budgeting purposes, a simple yet effective ''plug and play"websitetemplate(e.g. WordPress) is assumed with fi'js work plan. Project Information and Event Fliers/Posters hritial Community Workshop Boards/Presentations Workshop boards will be developed utilizing base maps from Task 1 and the approved graphic template, and will include sample renderings and photos of design treatments for barrier crossings, trails, and on-street facility best practices. 2.3 Walking/Biking Tours (2) CONSULT ANT will work with CITY to finalize the exact nature, timing, and route of the tours, but up two Walking Tours are anticipated, one at the start of the project to solicit input from residents before any initial public outreach meeting and a second tour at a later date after a community- preferred alignment is identified. CITY will be responsible for coordinating with CITY council, CITY executives, and commissions to participate in the event. CONSULTANT will be responsible the development of community outreach flyers and web-content to help announce and advertise the events. Highlights and discussion from the tours, recorded through notes, map graphics and digital photos, will be summarized in website posts and included as part of the Feasibility Study Report. 2.4 Workshops (3) CONSULT Al-..'T will prepare for, attend, and facilitate at least three community workshop meetings during the course of developing the feasibility study. Additional meetings will require approval by CITY pending budget availability. For the initial workshop, CONSULT M"T will be responsible for preparing a best practices presentation of creek trail crossings at various roadway types, including major arterials. residential arterials, and local streets. The best practices presentation will be used to help educate workshop participants regarding the types of opportunities tl-.at the project may offer the conummity and to help build community support for the project. The presentation should include photographs or other graphical illustrations of the best practices used around the country. 13 Professior.al Services Rev. Nov.l, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNINO -CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Platming\Ci4150007 Matadero Creeic Tra.il\Cl41 50007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc CONSULTANT will work with CITY to confliDl workshop details and timing, but propose the following as a potential outline for discussion: Workshop #1! Midtown Neighborhood -The purpose of this initial workshop, is to engage potentially affected residents and property owners in a dialogue on their vision and concerns for this portion of the Bay to Ridge Trail, build trust in the project development process and understanding of key locations/issues for design investigation, and help prioritize alternative routes to be studied. It will include a formal presentation of the project goals and funding requirements, basic site conditions, trail/street crossing .best practices, and potential design/perfonnance evaluation criteria, including factors previously cited by Midtown residents (See Tasks 3.1 and 3.2). For the remainder of the workshop, CONSULT ANT will facilitate a "hands on" planning assignment to channel energies toward productive, mutually beneficial outcomes. Workshop #2: Cal Ave-Ventura Neighborhood-A second public workshop will be held opposite the Caltrain corridor along California A venue or within the Ventura neighborhood and will include advance targeted outreach to Stanford residents/facility users. A similar agenda to Workshop # 1 is envisioned, although with the expectation of greater emphasis on identifying potential barrier crossings ofCaltrain and bikeway connections to the proposed Phase 1 Midtown trail segment. Workshop #3: Citywide Open House -A third and fmal workshop will be held upon publication of the draft feasibility study. This will be an important workshop to reconfirm the· community's vision, as well as to build excitement and support for project implementation. All meetings will include presentation of relevant materials, such as maps and data regarding existing conditions and facilities, opportunities and constraints, examples of potential bike/pedestrian trail improvements, and alternative solutions responding to the issues and objectives defined by the community. 2.5 Citizen's Advisory Committee I Neighborhood Facilitation Meetings (3) A Citizen's Advisory Committee, or similarly focused collection of stakeholders approved by the CITY, is proposed as a critical element of the public outreach strategy to encourage "buy in" from local residents, formalize collaboration among diverse stakeholders, and support equitable participation across the project impact area. The CAC (or collection of local stakeholders) would meet up to three (3) times during Stage 1 to review /connnent on major draft.deliverables such as the Project Parameters, Existing Conditions & Opportunities, and Draft Feasibility Study reports. Establishment of the CAC or approved alternative will be coordinated by the CI1Y and CONSULTANT. Representation may include, but not be limited to, the following associations/groups: Midtown Residents Association Midtown business representative Ventura Neighborhood Association Cal-Ventura Sub Area business representative Palo Verde Residents Association 14 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S :\ASD\J'URCH\SOUCIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING • CHRJS\CONTRACfS\Alta Planning\Cl4150007 Motadero Creek Traii\C141 50007 Contract Alta Matadero Creelc. .doc CSTSC school representative(s) Stanford Campus Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) P ABACffAC representative Palo Alto Recreation Foundation Additional CAC meetings may be scheduled for future stages of the project in order to help select a preferred alternative, pending CITY approval and interest from participating stakeholders. 2.6 Ongoing Communications . The CONSULTANT will be respo:nsible for the design of any related outreach materials and meeting summaries, with CITY staff responsible for the mailing/distribution of formal notices. Outreach Documentation I Website Updates The CONSULTANT will serve.as scribe for all community and stakeholder meetings, and will provide meeting notes and action item summaries within 5 business days of each meeting. Based on these summaries, CONSULT ANT will also provide bi-monthly (twice a month) project updates via the website and maintain an email contact list throughout Stage 1 of the project. Web Survey As a key strategy to decisively select no more than two community-preferred alignments for advancing to Project Stage 2, the CONSULTANT will utilize a customized web survey platform (e.g. Metro Quest) that includes seamless integration of project background infonn.ation, community prioritization and mapping, and integrated social media (sharing) tools. This web-based instrument will be an efficient way to convey highly visual and complicated information for each alternative; document community-driven concepts, quantify public preferences, and to build an email contact list for project updates. CONSULT ANT has budgeted staff time to prepare a dfaft online survey for CITY review, and to coordinate integration of the approved survey with our Metro Quest vendor partner or approved alternative. Farmer's Market/Event Tabling (up to 3) The CONSULTANT is prepared to staff a booth or table at up to three (3) community-sponsored events (e.g. the California A venue Farmer's Market, neighborhood association meetings) in order to reach the widest possible spectrum of residents and workers who would benefit from the Matadero Creek Trail (and the overall Stanford/Palo Alto Trails Program). These events will be timed to encourage public awareness and participation during the onli..."'W web survey and draft feasibility study outreach tasks. Stakeholder Meetings/Interviews (up to 4) The CONSULT ANT has budgeted for up to four ( 4) additional meetings or interviews in anticipation of potential stake..'lolders that require additional one-on-one outreach. Potential stakeholders to be considered for specialized outreach include, but are not limited to: Kim Grant Tennis Club IS Professional Services Rev. Nov. J, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNINO • CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Aitn Planniog\Cl4150007 Matadero Creek Tmil\CJ 4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creelc .<!oc First Christian Church Grace Lutheran Church Keys School El Camino/Wheatley/Sobrato (Fry's parcel property owner) Individual residents abutting Matadero Creek maintenance roads 2.7 Meetings/Presentations (5) Prior to development of the draft Feasibility Study Report, the CONSULT ANT will conduct study session presentations with Santa Clara Valley Water District staff(SCVWD) and CITY ofPalo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC), Bicycle Boulevards Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC), and Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC). Review and comment by the Water District will be prioritized before others in order to incorporate critical feedback on proposed aligrunent alternatives, including the determination of fatal flaws. Task 2.0 Deliverables Project Team/SCVWD Site Walk Initial Outreach Materials Package/Graphic Template and Website Commtuiity Site Tours (2) Trail/Street Crossing Best Practices Presentation . Community Workshops (3) Citizen's Advisory Committee Meetings (3) Event Tabling (up to 3 events) Individual Stakeholder futerviews/Meetings (up to 4) CITY/Agency Meetings (5) Task 3. Develop Study Components Up to five distinct corridor alignments will be developed to a 10% concept level and evaluated based on a set of evaluation c1iteria to be developed thro11gh the community outreach process and approved by CITY prior to use. Over/undercrossing alternatives and concept plans for the Caltrain corridor between Lorna Verde A venue and El Dorado A venue will be prepared, as will barrier crossing improvement plans for the Highway 101 corridor at Matadero Creek, Oregon Expressway I 01 Overpass, and possibly -the California A venue Cal train underpass. Compatibility and integration between the trail and barrier crossing alignments will be evaluated. Feasibility Study Report milestones will include an initial project understanding memorandum, existing conditions & opportunities report, options evaluation tasks, and development of a complete feasibility study in administrative draft, final draft, and fmal forms. 3.1 Project Parameters Memorandum CONSULT ANT will prepare an initial memorandum outlining the proposed draft: Proposed Project Goals Purpose & Need 16 Professional Services Rev.Nov.l,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING-CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Alta Plaoniog\CI41 50007 Matadero Creek Traii\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Study Area boundaries Performance evaluation criteria (i.e. preliminary ratings matrix), and Design criteria/best practices to be considered for all alternatives The latter may include references to the CAMUTCD (2012), National Association of CITY Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) Bicycle Technical Guidelines, City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Appendix A (Design Guidelines and Standards), AASHTO' s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition (20 12), 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, and FHW A's Designing Sidewalks a...'ld Trails for Access (2006). Based on the specific issues listed in the RFP, below is a list of likely/potential performance criteria to be considered in this task. Completion of the evaluation methodology will be performed as part of Task 3.9. Public Safety/Security Utility Conflicts Bicycle Suitability Index Pedestrian Suitability Index Connectivity to Priority Origins and-Destinations Projected User Demand Supports Barrier Crossings Private Property/ Right-of-Way Biological Impacts (includes trees) Flood Protection & SCVWD Operations Noise hnpacts Emergency Access Life Cycle Cost Community Preference Overall Constructability Traffic Impacts (LOS) Parking Impacts Conformance to . Project Funding requirements/ Agreements Considering that both off~street and on-street facilities will be compared to one another (for both bicyclists and pedestrians), this task will help establish a shared understanding of the technical and data requirements in advance of significant public outreach, and help answer the question, 'What is the Matadero Creek Project, what is the range of options being considered, and how will it be evaluated? ' 3.2 Existing Conditions & Opportunities Report The Existing Conditions & Opportunities Report will reflect and consolidate: Base mapping infonnation from Task 1 Relevant plans, project designs and assessments (see below) Existing and supplemental traffic and pedestrian/bicycle count data US Census/ American Community Survey data Public feedback and concepts from initial community workshops and tour SCVWD maintenance and flood protection needs, operations, and preliminary feedback Study session summaries from P ABAC and PRC 17 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOIJCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUVER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNINO -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Aita Planning\C 141 50007 Matadero Creek Tmii\C14150007 ContrliCt Alta Matadero Creek .doc The report will preliminarily identify up to five (5) trail alignment alternatives and four (4) barrier connection options for the Cal train and Highway 1 01 conidors, and will include initial opportunities/constraints analysis focused on environmental issues and design challenges. This report will be presented to the CAC for review/approval and also at the PTC study session before initiation ofTask 3.3 and fmalizationlpromotion of the web-based survey. Plans and project materials to be referenced for this report include, but are not limited to, the following: · City of Palo Alto California A venue Concept Area Plan (May 8, 2013 PTC Staff Report) City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study (2011) City of Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (2012) City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Improvement Plans and Intersection Counts (2013) Oregon Expressway-Project Concept Report (2010) or most recent update (includes AM/PM screenline bicycle and pedestrian counts) · Draft Caltrain!Califomia HSR Grade Crossing and Traffic Analysis Report (May 2013) Caltrain/Califomia HSR environmental documents Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts reports Cal trans Highway 101 Auxiliary Lane Project EIR (20 1 0) Stanford/Palo Alto Trails Program Grant Application (2012) Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995) 3.3 Preliminary Schematics & Design Up to five trail/corridor alignments, excluding barrier crossings, will be devel9Ped to the 1 00/o design level utilizing existing base map series and incorporating feedback obtained during preliminary Task 2 and Task 3 items. Up to two details for each alignment will be prepared in AutoCAD, Adobe Illustrator, or freehand overlays depicting the options at a scale of 1 in= 20 ft/40 ft. The conceptual drawings will be shown in plan, section and profile views (as needed) on the digital topographic mapping, and will clearly indicate critical dimensions, unique geometric features and program elements, conceptual traffic control and signage/striping, landscaping, location of visible utilities, proposed circulation revisions, and proximity to adjacent land uses. Additional conceptual level schematics will be advanced for up to four barrier crossing locations, with a priority focus on the "South Palo Alto Caltrain Crossing" concept near Matadero Creek. Design concepts from this task will help form the basis of the web-based survey and preliminary cost estimates provided in Task 3.8 3.4 Options Evaluation After completion of initial outreach and study sessions, and identification of alignment altemati ves, the options evaluation phase will begin. Public feedback will be focused on the web survey and targeted stakeholder follow-up while the CONSULT ANT prepares the following elements in order to tentatively select preferred alignments. 18 Profe5Sional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDE!RS\J>LANN1NG -CHRJS\CONTRACTSWta Planni11g\Cl41 S0007 Matadero Creek Trail\CI4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Pedestrian/Bicycle Suitability Analysis The CONSULTANT will use and build upon an innovative GIS-based methodology, generically known as the Bicycle & Pedestrian Suitability Index (B/PSI), to evaluate current ·and potential biking and walking activity levels along each alternative trail corridor. B/PSI is a supply and demand model that will evaluate roadway, sidewalk, and pathway quality (metrics indicative of traffic stress and trail user comfort) and quantify factors that influence bicycle and pedestrian activity (demand). B/PSI's demand model combines metrics reflective of where people live, work, play (recreate), access transit, and access schools into a composite sketch of where -and to what degree -activity is likely to occur. B/PSI will provide critical infonnation for understanding broad spatial relationslr>.ips and pathway quality, but will need to be supplemented by Alta's Shortest Path Analysis network routing tool to provide a more specific understanding of what discrete roadway and pathway linkages are most convenient for cyclists and pedestrians to access destinations. In short, the B/PSI and Shortest Path Analysis methodology will provide the means for assessing trail alignment alternatives based on proximity to origins/destinations (trip generators)? pathway quality (including intersection and roadway design factors), and the spatial/directional efficiency of these alternatives. Safety/Security Assessment As part of the use and safety analysis, the CONSULTANT will perform an informal safety and security audit and prepare site-specific recommendations on related items including: Sight Distance Vegetation Private Fencing Intersections/Driveways Signage "Hiding place" removal Lighting (ambient street ligh~ private light levels) Graffiti and other nuisance removal On-going enforcement Other aspects Preliminary Environmental Review At this stage in the study the CONSULTANT team, led by Circlepoin~ will conduct a preliminary environmental review for each of the alignment and barrier crossing options. The team will use CITY's CEQA Thresholds as the basis for this preliminary assessment. The level of detail will be abbreviated and will be relative to the level of detail of project plans, but will be used to help identify any potential "fatal flaws" and identify key risk factors in terms of possible significant environmental effects, substantial permitting/regulatory requirements, or other factors that could impact project feasibility and/or cost. David J Powers & Associates will provide peer review of this analysis. Hexagon (traffic) and Schaaf & Wheeler (:flood protection/hydraulics) will provide technical subconsultant expertise. 19 Professionai Services R.ev:Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCfrATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNING • CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Pli.UllriDg\Cl41 S0007 Maladero Credc. Traii\C14150007 Cootract Alta Metadero Creek .doc The CONSULTANT anticipates that the trail feasibility analysis may require further preliminary teclmical investigations, to be prepared by Hexagon (transportation/traffic), Schaaf & Wheeler (flood protection/hydraulics) HT Harvey (biological), Baseline (hazardous materials), and Parikh Associates (geotechnical). These studies have been included as optional tasks to refine the enviromnental assessment, in preparation for future formal environmental assessment of the community-preferred alternative( s). Utility Evaluation The CONSULTANT will prepare an initial evaluation of potential utility conflicts and necessary relocations in the project vicinity for the alignment alternatives. We will contact utility providers to obtain record utility information such as electrical, gas, ~elephone and communication lines, and may supplement this information with initial topographic survey efforts for the draft preferred alternative as necessary. Permitting & Right-of-Way Requirements We will identify potential required right-of-way acquisitions or easements, based on boundary information collected during the project startup phase (Task 1). Right-of-way needs will be based on available mapping showing parcel boundaries and ownership, and may be supplemented with information from initial topographic survey efforts. Specifically, we will be looking for property line markers, utilities, foundation data, and other information. Although not anticipated in the proposed environmental scope of work, key permitting issues to be investigated and confirmed at this stage include possible federal permit requirements from the US Army Corps of Engineers (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), possible Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; and possible need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish & Game Code. Preliminary Cost Estimates CONSULT ANT Team, led by Sandis and BCA, will serve as the professional estimating finns and prepare an estimate of probable cost for each alignment alternative and up to two barrier crossing concepts. CONSULTANT will use clearly stated unit cost assumptions based on our recent experiences in the area developing trails, on~street facilities, and over/undercrossings. Alignments Decision Matrix Criteria identified in Tasks 3.1 will be reviewed, weighted., and scored for alignment·alternatives under consideration: The evaluation of each alignment and ramp configuration will include a discussion and comparison including the advantages and disadvantages of each of the various alternatives investigated. 3.S Administrative Draft Feasibility Study Using materials developed in the previous tasks, Alta will prepare a high-quality, illustrative report that documents our study process and alignment and design recommendations. Alta will produce 20 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNrNG -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Alta Planning\C 14150007 Matadero Crook Trail\CJ 4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc one administrative draft report; circulate it to CITY Staff, and execute one round of revisions based on a consolidated, internally consistent set of comments provided to CONSULT ANT by CITY. 3.6 Draft Study Presentations The CONSl.JLTANT will present the findings from the Draft Final Feasibility Study at up to six CITY I Agency meetings, including: Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) Bicycle Boulevards Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Planning & Transportation. Commission (PTC) Santa Clara Valley Water District Approval Hearing/Meeting (SCVWD) CONSULT ANT will take meeting notes as necessary, and after receiving direction from CITY staff will ?fepare and present a Draft Final Report to CITY Cmmcil for approval. 3. 7 Finalize Report Upon receiving final comments from CITY, CONSULT ANT will produce a Final Feasibility Study Report for CITY files and inclusion on the project website. Task 3.0 Deliverables: Project Parameters Memorandum Existing Conditions & Opportunities Report Trail Alignment Alternatives-10% Design Drawings and Preliminary Cost Estimates Across Barrier Connection Alternatives -Concept Drawings, Preliminary Cost Estimates Preliminary ~vironmental technical assessments, including for potential traffic, geoteclmical/subswface, biological, and water quality/hydraulic impacts Admin Dra:ft/Draft/Final Feasibility Study Presentation at up to six ( 6) Agency/CTIY Meetings, including PPT presentations and summary notes Optional Tasks The following optional tasks can be provided by the CONSULT ANT if requested by CITY. CITY and CONSULTANT shall discuss each Additional Task in writing and identify a cost for each service prior to commencement of work, as assumptions may change. Task 5. Review/Confmn CEQA Impacts/Requirements The CONSULT ANT, led by Circlepoint with peer review by David Powers & Associates, will assist CTIY in determining the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the project based on the draft Feasibility Study Report findings and community-preferred alignment alternatives. A separate meeting and additional level of effort is anticipated to refine/finalize potential technical memorandums necessary to confirm alignment alternative feasibility and preference. 21 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCJTATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNING • CHlUS\CONTRACTSWte PlaDlling\C141S0007 Matadero Cmek Trail\CJ 4 l 50007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Task 6. Initiate Environll)ental Documentation 6.1 Prepare Technical Studies· The CONSULTANT, led by Circlepoint and technical subconsultants, will conduct additional technical studies focused on anticipated environmental issues of concern for up to two alignment corridors. These studies are detailed below. The scope of these technical studies was developed with the understanding that the alternatives may include most or all of the access road along Matadero Creek, but that none would require any work in the creek or in any jurisdictional water or wetland area. If work is to be performed that impacts CDFW jurisdiction and requires a streambed alteration permit, additional technical review can be provided and a scope of work/free prepared. Traffic If traffic concerns/issues arise during the development of potential trail alignments, CONSULT ANT, led by Hexagon Transportation CONSULTANTs will work with the CONSULTANT Planning Team to prepare a traffic impact analysis to satisfy environmental requirements. For base budgeting purposes, it is anticipated that the level of review required will be a mitigated negative declaration. The traffic analysis will include an evaluation of intersection level of service and roadway traffic diversion as well as potential issues related to closely spaced signalized intersections (if necessary). The traffic analysis findings will be summarized in a draft report, with text, tables and graphics as required. CONSULTANT budget estimate is based on a preliminary understanding of potential design alternatives. After receiving input from CITY staff, changes to our preliminary budget may be necessary, particularly if an EIR is found to be warranted based on traffic concerns. Biological Resources CONSULTANT, led by H. T. Harvey & Associates, ecologist will conduct a single brief reconnaissanc~level site visit of the preferred alternative alignment to identify existing biological conditions and the alignment's potential to support special-status species of plants and animals. For the purposes of this scope, CONSULT ANT assumes the trail alignment from Greer Road to Highway 101 will use the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District levee road. CONSULT ANT assumes that the preferred alternative will not entail any work in the creek bed or permitting from· the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, CONSULT ANT site visit will include an assessment of the approximate locations of sensitive or potentially regulated (jurisdictional) habitats, such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters ofthe U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or potential waters of the State, only in the context of confirming that no such habitats are present outside the Matadero Creek channel. No species-specific surveys are proposed at this time. Biological Resomces Memorandwn: Upon completion of our site visit, CONSULT ANT will assist the project team with the development of the biological resources section of the environmental document. CONSULTANT will prepare a memorandum which briefly describes the existing biological setting, special-status species that could occur, impacts that we would consider potentially significant under CEQA, and any conceptual mitigation measures we would consider necessary to 22 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PI.ANNINO • Ct:lRJS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\C 14150007 Matadero Creek Tnsll\CI4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc mitigate potentiaHy significant impacts (as defined by CEQA) to less·than·significant levels. Our evaluation will assume there will be no impacts to sensitive or potentially regulated (jurisdictional) habitats,· such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Cultural Resources: CONSULTANT, led by Circlepoint, will consult with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), Northwest Information Center {NWIC) at Sonoma State University to conduct a record search of the project area and an appropriate buffer area. All previous cultural resource su.tveys, known ~Jstoric or prehistoric sites, and listed or properties eligible fer the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) within the area of the literature search will be identified. Given the nature of the project, for scoping purposes, CONSu"'LT ANT assumes that the project will not involve.the modification of any historic building or structure. CONSULTANT furt.lter assumes that the above records search will not indicate a need for any further cultural resources investigation or evaluation. Hazardous Materials For the proposal it is assumed that BASELINE would prepare a limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase I ESA"). A limited Phase I1 soil sampling for the Matadero Creek Trail project may also be performed as an optional task. The Phase I ESA scope assumes that the alternatives along Matadero Creek will not contemplate soil removal or any other physical disturbance except for paving~ fencing. and signage between Ahna Street and Greer Road, but may include some soil removal/disturbance in the portion of the access road between Greer Road and the east end of US 1 01 (if this portion of the creek trail and/or seasonal underpass is to be included in the CEQA review). Therefore, the proposed hazardous materials review is focused only on the approximately 1,500 foot long section of the access road between Greer Road to the east edge of Highway 101. The limited Phase I ESA scope assumes the following tasks: Site Reconnaissance Historical Records Search Regulatory Records and Select Files Review Based on the above tasks a brief technical report will be prepared describing the activities and findings. The report would include recommendations for further investigation and/or excavated soil handling procedures, if warranted. ~ Whiie a bicycle/pedestrian path would not ordinarily be considered a potential new significant noise source, the potential use of the SCVWD access road would introduce more frequent use of this area which is immediately adjacent to several residential backyards. 23 Professional Services Rev. Nov. I, 2011 8:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CUR'RENT BUYER-CM FOIDERS\PLANNING • CHRlS\CONTRACTSWta PIMDmg\CI4150007 Ma!ade'f'O Creek Trail\CI4 i 50007 Contract AJtn Matndero Creek .doc To provide a stronger evidentiary basis for the environmental review, CONSULTANT led by Illingworth and Rodkin, will prepare a brief memo qualitatively evaluating the potential for the project to result in significant noise impactS. In preparation this swnmary memo, CONSULT M1 will review project plans and other pertinent information, review Palo Alto General plan and internal CONSULT ANT files for applicable noise data, sununarize applicable regulatory criteria, estimate construction and operational noise levels at sensitive receptors along project alignment, assess potential for project impacts and identify mitigation (if necessary). CONSULT ANT assumes that the alternatives will not ultimately result in any significant noise impacts during construction or operation. Water Resources/Flood Control CONSULTANT, led by Schaaf & Wheeler, will evaluate the prefel.1'ed altemative(s) for impacts to Matadero Creek and potential mitigation measures required to render the impact to a less than significant level. During this phase, CONSULT ANT will evaluate and document the significance of any Project encroachment inside the channel bank, and the potential of said encroachment to compromise the flood flow capacity or freeboard provided by Matadero Creek. Since it is assumed that the no alternative will be constructed in any jurisdictional water or wetland area, it is premature to scope detailed quantitative analyses. Due to the fairly unique method of certification for Matadero Creek floodwalls through a risk and uncertainty analysis prepared by CONSuLTANT, the type of quantitative analysis required will be location-specific to a large degree. Stage 2 documents will provide a scope of services for further detailed analyses only if necessary. Task 6.2 Evaluation of Alternatives Upon receipt and review of technical study information from Task 6.1, the CONSULT ANT will re- examine the proposed alignment alternatives in greater detail with respect to environmental and community acceptance. Performance criteria will be refined, weighted, and expanded as necessary from the Feasibility Study Report and a revised environmental evaluation summary will be prepared for CITY consideration. Task 6.3 Environmental Evaluation Peer Review CONSULTANT peer review, led by David Powers & Associates, will provide peer-review of the docwnent and submit a separate memorandum directly to CITY that discusses any potential discrepancies in the initial reports and that can be used to guide discussions between CITY and CONSULTANT. Task 7. Design Contingency (Optional) A placeholder budget has been provided for additional qesign and topographic survey services not asswned in the base scope and budget. If necessary, CITY and CONSULTANT shall discuss each additional task in writing and identify a cost for each service prior to commencement of work. FUTURESTAGES:ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT,PRELIMINARY/FINALDESIGN 24 Professional Services · Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOL!CIT ATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNINO • CHRJS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\CJ4 I 50007 Matadero Creek Trail\C14150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Upon identification of the community-preferred alternative( s ), CITY and CONSULT ANT will begin negotiations for the next phases of the project including Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Desi~ and Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award of additional contracts will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY anticipate dil'ect negotiations with the CONSULT ANT for PS&E for the projects identified in this contract pending the successful completion of the Feasibility Study phase discussed in this Agreement. 2S Professional Srnrices Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S :\ASD\PURCH\SOUCIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER.CM FOlDERS \PLANNING -CHR.lS\CONTRACTS\Alta Plnruring\Cl4150007 Ma!adero Creek:Trail\Cl4150007 Contract Ah11 Matadero Creek .doc EXillBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CON SULTANT shall perlorm the Services so as to complete each milestone within the nuinber of days/weeks/months specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. Milestones 1. Kick Off Meeting 2. Baseline Maps 3. CommUnity Outreach 4. Technical Advisory Committee 5. Conceptual Plan lines 26 Completion No. ofDays!Weeks/Months FromNTP 30 Days 90Days 12 Months 18 Months 12 Months Professiooal Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANN1NO -CH.RIS\CONTRACTS\Aita Planning\C14150007 Matadero Cn:dc Trail\Cl4150007 Contract Al1n Matadero Creek .doc EX..'liBIT "C" COMPENSATION The 01Y agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTM'T under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A., ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $306,376.00. CONSULTAl'\lT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $369,445.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY•s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer ofbudget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expcm;es, does not exceed $306,377.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $369,445.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Taskl (Project Startup) Task2 (Ongoing Community Stakeholder Outreach) $53,121.00 $76,628.00 Task 3 $116,875.00 (Develop Study Component) Task 4 $18,327.00 (Administration) Sub-total Basic Services $264,951.00 Reimbursable Expenses $41,425.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $306,3 76 14 Professiona! Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASO\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING-CHIUS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\Ci4150007 Matadero Creek Traii\CI4l50C07 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $63,069.00 Maximum Total Compensation $369,445.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secreta.rial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULT ANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULT ANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subJect to the City ofPalo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $10,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSUL TANTshall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule an~ maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Paytnent for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement IS Professional Services Rev. Nov. J, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING-CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Alta PI8.DIIiDg\CJ4150007 Matadero Creek Traii\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doe EXIllBIT "C-1" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE 18 Professional Servioes Rev Nov. I, 2011 8:\A.SD\PURCH\SOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDERS\PLANNINO -CHlUS\CONTRACTSWta Planning\Cl4150007 Matadero C~ Tmil\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc EXHffilT "D" INSURANCE REQillREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO TilE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), ATTIIEffi. SOLE EXPENSE. SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR TilE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITHAM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VIl, OR IDGHER, IJCENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN TlfE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLiANCE WITH CITY'S rNSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SJ>ECIFIED BELOW· MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABlLITY STATIJTORY BODrL Y lNJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL UABlLITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODll.. Y INJURY&. PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABll..ITY COMBINED. BODll..Y INniRY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBn.E UABR.ITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIAB!UfY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000 000 THE CI1Y OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDlTlONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR. AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHAlL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL fORCE AND EFFECTTHR.OUGHOUTTIIEENTIRET.ERM OF ANY RESULT ANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREJN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULT ANTS, IF Al'N, BUT ALSO, WITH TilE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER' 5 IJABJLlTY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDIDONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEE'£. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN TIIIR1Y (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACfUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CJ1Y. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. lJJ. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS. WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PR!MARY COVERAGE WITI:I RESPECT TO CLAlMS ARJSING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY TH[S POLICY lS PRIMARY Al'U) IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR 1HE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. 19 Professional Services Rev Nov. I, 2011 8:\ASD\PUR.CH\SOLJCIT A TJONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTSWta Plaoning\C 1415000' Matadero Creek Ttail\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doo B. CROSS IlABILTIY 1HE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS l.NSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHAlL NOT INCREASE. THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER TillS POUCY. C. NOTICE OP CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POUCY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER 1HANTHENON-PAYMENTOFPREMIUM, THEISSU.ING COMPANYSHAILPROVIDECITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRTITEN NOTICE BEFORE TilE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POUCY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (lO)DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCElLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAD..ED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADIDNISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALOALTO,CA 94303 20 .Professiona} Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCIT ATfONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOlDERSIJ>LANNING -CHRJS\CONTRACTS\Alta Planning\C14! 50007 Matadero Creek Trail\Cl4150007 Contract Alta Matadero Creek .doc Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 20111 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of March, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to make streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston Arastadero Corridor (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through 10/31/2015 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB ATTACHMENT E Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed six hundred and sixty-nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty five Dollars ($669.765.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed sixty seven thousand Dollars ($67,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: - TJKM - Gates - DJ Powers - Bicycle Solutions CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Jimmy W. Sims, PE as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2612. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. / / / / 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 9 executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney MARK THOMAS & COMPANY Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Robert A. Himes 1/28/2014 President Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CHARLESTON & ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK The Project scope of work shall consist of the following tasks: TASK A Site Analysis and Field Survey 1. The Consultant shall attend a kick‐off Meeting with City staff to review the project scope and general field conditions. 2. The Consultant shall review and analyze the existing data augmented by discussion with City staff including review of City‐provided information. 3. Consultant shall provide a field survey of site for purposes of use as a base plan. The survey shall contain the following: curb and gutter, flow lines, sidewalks, edge of pavements, edge of sidewalks, edge of pavement way (gutter line), drainage structures, street lights, signage, roadway delineation, traffic signal standards, trees, railroad facilities, and visible utility boxes and valves within the roadway and sidewalk zones in order to prepare improvements along the Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road Corridor between Charleston Road and Fabian Way, and Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. Field elements and drainage information not collected by the Consultant during this task that may be identified in future tasks as required for the completion of design plans for the project will be completed by the Consultant without additional payment. 4. The Consultant shall provide a site investigation including observation and research, identifying all utilities, easements, right‐of‐way and signage and striping/ median lane geometry, lighting and soil and tree conditions. 5. The Consultant shall develop site plans and cross sections show existing and new grades, topography, location of trees, utilities, lights and structures including intersections, road frontages and medians, invert elevations and direction of flow to storm drains in the project area. 6. Plans shall be in AutoCAD 2012 format. Consultant shall also provide 5 hard copy sets of the field survey (1 DRAFT Set/1 FINAL Set upon City Approval of Survey) ‐ 24” x 36” sheets of consecutive plan views of roadway, including center medians and sidewalk frontage planning areas and all intersections of the project corridor from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue at a scale of 1”=20’. 7. Consultant Survey and Base Mapping for the work described above will serve as the Project Topographic Base Map. Survey Control will be provided to the design team in both the hard copy and electronic version. Consultant will distribute DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 project base mapping to all design team members and make accessible readily upon each design state. This topographic base map will be the uniform “x‐reference” for all design work. Topographic base mapping will be updated for all subconsultants at the beginning of each design phase. 8. Consultant shall provide a 2 page technical report summarizing findings. TASK B Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations 1. The consultant shall prepare a new Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Relevant / accurate information contained in the previously approved 2003 MND will be used much as possible. 2. The City anticipates a Traffic Study to be required to allow for the consideration of additional safety and roadway capacity configurations not included in the original 2004 Corridor Study at the following intersections, the Consultant shall be responsible for collecting peak‐hour turning movement count and 7‐day tube count data to respond to the following design alternatives: ・ Charleston Road & Fabian Way ‐ Charleston Road Left Turn Signal Phasing Option ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Louis Road‐Montrose Avenue ‐ Reconfiguration of Median Island Access and Pedestrian Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Middlefield Road ‐ Reconfigure Bicycle Lanes and consider option for Dedicated WBRT lane ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Consider Bicycle Box Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Nelson Drive ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Hoover School Driveway ‐ Existing break in painted Median Island, validate Charleston Road Left storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Carlson Court ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Mumford Pl ‐ Existing uncontrolled Crossing, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Wright Place ‐ Existing uncontrolled crossing with transit operations, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 ・ Charleston Road & Alma Street ‐ Existing adjacent Caltrain operations ‐ Evaluate opportunities to clearly designate bicycle lane facilities across intersection and trackway ・ Charleston Road & Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate opportunity for median islands across intersection providing limited right turn only access from Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate Enhanced Crosswalk Improvement opportunities across Charleston Road ・ Charleston Road & Ruthelma Avenue ‐ Existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Charleston Road, evaluate for Enhanced Crosswalk Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Wilkie Way ‐ Existing traffic signal facility, evaluate for permitted left turn lanes on Charleston Road or with exclusive left turn signal phasing ‐ Wilkie Way is a Bicycle Boulevard crossing, consider special intersection improvements including exclusive microwave bicycle detection and roadway markings ・ El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road ‐ Caltrans maintained intersection; evaluate intersection for bicycle‐pedestrian focused treatments including intersection bulb‐outs to support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations planned by the VTA ‐ Consider removal of existing Free Right Turn “Slip Lanes” at intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Alta Mesa‐McKellar Lane ‐ Evaluate intersection for median island improvements to restrict left turn access out of Alta Mesa‐McKeller but allow left turns off of Arastradero Road ‐ Evaluate Transit Shelter/Bike Station at westbound approach of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Clemo Drive‐Suzanne Drive ‐ Existing Enhanced Crosswalk location, consider additional bicycle‐pedestrian safety measures including widening of sidewalk widening at Briones Park ‐ Study alternative to provide permanent No Parking Restrictions along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly from Suzanne Drive ‐ Protect fire station access at intersection and along Arastradero Road frontage ・ Arastradero Road & Los Palos Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to improve left turn egress access from Los Palos Avenue to westbound Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Coulombe Drive ‐ Evaluate options for Bike Box facilities at intersection ‐ Evaluate option for Cycle Track with Sidewalk Widening along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ‐ Existing signal with permitted‐protected signal phasing, study appropriate left turn capacity storage requirements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 4 ‐ Consider intersection bulb‐out treatments along North side of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Pomona Avenue‐King Arthur Court ‐ Evaluate opportunities left turn egress access from side streets onto Arastradero Road ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Evaluate intersection bulb‐out treatments at Pomona Avenue ‐ Evaluate sidewalk widening along the South side of Arastradero Road west of Pomona Avenue to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ・ Arastradero Road & Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunities for intersection bulb‐out treatments ‐ Evaluate Terman Drive operations and provide recommendations for improvements to improve circulation out of Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunity to provide dedicate EBRT movement at the intersection ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Arastradero Road – Georgia Avenue to Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements, protect two‐way left turn access for side streets along North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road – West of Georgia Avenue ‐ Evaluate options to provide Cycle Track or Improved sidewalk access along the north side of Arastradero Road to Gunn High School ‐ Evaluate options to provide decorative guard rail and widened sidewalk treatments along the South side of Arastradero Road to Miranda Avenue ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements to Georgia Avenue, Arastradero West Apartments, and Alta Mesa Cemetery Driveway ‐ Evaluate trail integration options at Hetch‐Hetchy Los Altos Trail intersection on South side of Arastradero Road; no trail crossing along the North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Gunn High School Driveway ‐ Consider Bike Box treatments at intersection ‐ Evaluate left turn storage requirements at intersection and consider traffic signal phasing improvements to improve intersection capacity ・ Arastradero Road & Miranda Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to provide WBLT lane to Southbound Miranda Avenue 3. Provide required documentation for NEPA certification as required by Caltrans Local Assistance including Traffic Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Technical Memorandums for Air Quality, Biology, Hydraulic Study, Land Use and Cultural Impact, Hazard Materials, Historical Resources, Temporary 4(f) Impact, Tree Preservation/Removal, Construction Staging, etc. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 4. Consultant shall provide value engineering report to help determine project elements and limits of work for each phase. 5. Consultant shall provide an arborist report per the City’s Tree Technical Manual for trees in the public‐right‐of‐way along with corridor. 6. Consultant shall provide innovative storm drain study for water conservation and irrigation design. 7. Coordination with Caltrans and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for traffic signal/intersection modification at El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road. TASK C Plan Line Development and Public Meetings Immediately upon survey of the project area and collection of traffic data, the Consultant shall begin development of Plan Line Alternatives for presentation to the community. The Consultant shall develop up to five Plan Line Alternatives and begin an extensive public outreach process to develop a Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative that will serve as the basis for the development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PS&E) for the project. The Consultant should allow up to six months of community outreach for the development of the Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative. The City anticipates the following community outreach meeting schedule for development of the Preferred Community Plan Line: ・ General Community Outreach Meetings (3 Total) ・ Neighborhood Specific Focused Outreach Meetings (4 Total) o Green Meadow/Walnut Grove o Monroe Park/Charleston Meadows o Barron Park o Palo Alto Orchard/Green Acres I/II ・ Study Session with Planning & Transportation Commission ・ Study Session with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee ・ Study Session with City‐School Traffic Safety Committee ・ Study Session with City Council ・ Presentation Planning & Transportation Commission 1. Consultant shall prepare all outreach, notices and meeting and presentation materials for stakeholder, community and public meetings. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 2. Deliverables: o Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment for Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road Corridor Project DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 TASK D Conceptual and Preliminary Designs Upon approval the Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment, the Consultant shall begin development of Conceptual and Preliminary Design to engage the community on the identification of Streetscape Treatments along the corridor including development of Community‐Preferred Landscape and Streetscape Furniture Palette’s. 1. The conceptual and preliminary design task includes selecting the locations of the new crosswalks, signs, street lighting & traffic signal standards, and intersection improvements, medians and curb bulb‐outs. Prepare presentation boards for City staff to use at public meetings. Consultant to provide section and elevation concept plans. 2. Prepare all noticing, presentation materials, plan sets copies, meeting summaries for public meetings to present preliminary design proposals, and act as facilitator of the meetings. 3. Meet and confer with City Staff to respond to and address City, stakeholder and Community comments. 4. Present the plans to the stakeholder, community, Public Art Commission, Architectural Review Board and to the Planning and Transportation Commission and address comments. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 5. Collect comments received during Conceptual and Preliminary Designs to include in project specifications. 6. Refined cost estimates based on value engineering. Public Art Programming & Coordination Provide consultation and technical input on the solicitation of offers for public art, the selection of qualified artists and selection of public art proposals. ・ Coordination with Arts Commission during the early design stages ・ Work with City, users and design team in the selection art sites available within the project area 5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION Additional services may be required and services are subject to project manager approval. Examples of services are as follows: ・ Additional meetings with ARB, Council and the public and associated materials ・ Additional plan drawings and revisions 6. INFORMATION and SERVICES PROVIDED BY the City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 The City will provide the following during the design phase: ・ Base Map from GIS for use in Identifying City‐Owned Utility Information ・ 2004 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan ・ 2004 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ・ AutoCAD title block ・ Plan line drawings submitted as part of the OBAG and VERBS Grant Applications ・ City standard construction details and technical specifications for irrigation work, asphalt, concrete, sidewalk, curb and gutter, tree planting, landscaping and median details in AutoCAD 2012; ・ Environmental documents; ・ City staff shall assist in obtaining design review comments from City staff; The City will provide the following during the Bid and Construction phase: ・ City shall advertise, provide bidders list, assist in obtaining bid document review comments and reproduce copies of bid and construction documents to contractors. ・ City shall provide general and supplementary conditions and City’s boilerplate specifications (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.) Consultant is responsible for reviewing and verifying all supplied information. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. TIMELINE: Weeks from NTP Task 1 – Site Analysis and Field Surveys Field Surveys and Aerial Mapping 10 Task 2 – Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations Traffic Study 20 CEQA and NEPA 50 Caltrans PEER 50 Task 3 – Plan Line Development and Public Meetings 40 Task 4 – Conceptual and Preliminary Design 55 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $669,765. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $67,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. 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 $669,765 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $67,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $71,588 (Site Analysis and Field Survey) Task 2 $300,225 (Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations) Task 3 $207,598 (Plan Line Development) Task 4 $90,354 (Conceptual and Preliminary Designs) Sub-total Basic Services $669,765 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $669,765 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $67,000 Maximum Total Compensation $736,765 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 18 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Project Manager: $245/hr Lead Civil Designer: $178/hr Project Engineer: $178/hr Utility Lead Designer: $178/hr VA Lead Designer: $178/hr Drainage Designer $140/hr Design Engineer III: $128/hr Design Engineer II: $113/hr Design Engineer I: $105/hr Engineering Tech: $74/hr Survey Manager: $158/hr Field Surveyor: $116/hr Right of Way Coordinator: $116/hr 1 person field survey crew: $160/hr 2 person survey crew: $215/hr DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 19 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 20 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 6 Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network ATTACHMENT F 6-4 | Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan City of Palo Alto Chapter 6 ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-13011, CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPORTED BY A TRANSFER FROM THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND. 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. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000 for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project to consolidate these two projects into one project; and C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas & Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project; and D. Additional funding is also required for seven public outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of approximately $5,500 per meeting; and E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368 requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2014 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The sum of Three Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($335,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE- 13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. SECTION 3. Three Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($335,000) is hereby transferred from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund. SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 5. Because the construction phase will receive state and local grant funds originating from the federal government, the environmental assessment of the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project must be conducted to comply with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared in 2004. Mark Thomas & Company will assist staff with the preparation of the required environmental documents. In support of the environmental analysis, the consultant will conduct the special technical studies as required by Caltrans for the NEPA process. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Deleted: SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance.¶ Deleted: 5 Deleted: 6 AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk __________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney __________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Public Works __________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4018) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/10/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Award of Planning and Environmental Services Support Contracts T itle: Approval of Nine On-Call Planning and Environmental Consulting Services Contracts for the Department of Planning and Community Environment to Support Current Planning, Special Projects, Advance Planning, and Environmental Review as Follows: Planning Services - 1) Dudek, 2) Arnold Mammarella, Architecture and Consulting, 3) The Planning Center/DC&E, 4) Metropolitan Planning Group; Environmental Services - 5) Dudek, 6) URS Corporation, 7) ICF International, 8) Turnstone Consulting, and 9) David J Powers & Associates in Amounts Not to Exceed $930,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee: 1. To execute nine contracts with the nine firms for the provision of on-call planning and environmental consulting services necessary to support the day-to-day work of the Planning and Community Environment Department over the next three years in a total to not exceed the cumulative amount of $930,000 and 2. To the extent the consultants seek exceptions from the City’s standard Professional Services contract, authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate language acceptable as to form by the City Attorney and City’s Risk Manager Executive Summary The Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE) routinely uses consultants to secure specific expertise and to help with fluctuations in the day-to-day workload. The current contracts are now expiring, and the department released two Requests for Proposals (RFPs): one for Planning Support Services and one for Environmental Support Services. The purpose of these RFPs was to create an “on-call” consultant list for each of these areas, allowing the City of Palo Alto Page 2 Department to access specific expertise and consultant support on an as needed basis. Staff now requests Council to authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached three-year contracts with the selected consultants. Background PCE has historically maintained contracts with several consultants to provide the various on-call services. In recent years, the department has relied on the use of on-call service providers to meet performance objectives and to address increases in workloads as the economy has rebounded and development activity has accelerated. Initially, consultants were mostly used for residential architectural reviews, although in the past year, consultants have been increasingly called upon to help with environmental evaluations and project reviews. Discussion From time to time the Planning Division requires assistance from consultants with environmental review or other professional planning expertise. PCE has been using the services of contract planners to access specific skills and as a way to increase the Department’s capacity when workloads increase. The Department’s existing contracts will expire shortly, although staff anticipates that the need for consultant planning services to support day-to-day Department activities will remain strong. New contracts are needed to ensure continued service delivery that is efficient, reliable, accurate, responsive, and cost-effective. Consultants are used as project managers to manage applications for planning entitlements or as independent technical consultants. The City issued RFPs to identify consultants with extensive experience working with public entities to provide expertise in project planning and environmental review services. Executing contracts with the firms selected as a result of the RFPs will create an “on call” list of consultants that can be used on short notice when the Department’s workload requires their assistance. This will allow Department staff to quickly access the professional skills and assistance that is needed in a particular situation. Twenty-six proposals were received: fifteen for environmental services and eleven for planning services. Based on the department’s evaluation of proposals, five were selected for the provision of environmental services and four for planning services. These consultants are: Planning Services - 1) Dudek, 2) Arnold Mammarella, Architecture and Consulting, 3) The Planning Center/DC&E, 4) Metropolitan Planning Group; Environmental Services – 5) Dudek, 6) URS Corporation, 7) ICF International, 8) Turnstone Consulting, and 9) David J. Powers & Associates. The scope of services for the planning services is attached as Exhibit A and the scope of services City of Palo Alto Page 3 for the environmental services is attached as Exhibit B. Contracts signed by the selected firms are forthcoming for execution by the City Manager pending Council approval. Once the “on-call” contracts are executed, the consultants will be utilized as needed and will be chosen for a project dependent upon project need and firm expertise. These will be three year, on-call contracts, with a cumulative contract limit of $930,000. The consultant’s work under each individual contract will have to be authorized by the City in advance, allowing flexibility to address program need, but ensuring that no more than $930,000 will be spent on all of these contracts combined over three years. Consultants selected are not guaranteed work, but are available if/as needed for work up to the contracted amount over the course of the three year term. Resource Impact Utilizing consultants for specific assistance is an efficient and effective use of resources, allowing the Department to quickly access needed technical skills and address fluctuations in workload. One third of the cost of the recommended contracts is budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2014 Operating Budget, and is expected to be sufficient to cover the cost of services needed to support routine current planning work and incidental advance planning activities. No additional funds for “on-call” services are needed or requested this fiscal year. Additional funding may be needed for major projects such as the Comprehensive Plan, and these will be addressed in future agenda items. Also, based on the type and number of incoming projects, the department may request a funding increase for “on-call” consultant services during the Fiscal Year 2015 budget process. Attachments: Exhibit A: Contract Scope of Services for Planning On-call Contracts (PDF) Exhibit B: Contract Scope of Services for Environmental On-call Contracts (PDF) SCOPE OF SERVICES ON-CALL PLANNING CONTRACT CONSULTANT shall provide expertise in planning and planning review on an on-call basis. CONSULTANT staff will serve as project managers (planning entitlements and CEQA/NEPA documents) or as independent technical consultants. CONSULTANT shall, as needed: Serve as Project Manager for planning entitlements and CEQA/NEPA documents Provide planning and planning review expertise Meet with CITY staff for project status and updates Process, review and manage routine and complex development entitlements, including re- zonings, Coordinated Area Plans, subdivision maps, and associated environmental review as needed. Implement the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, Coordinated Area Plans, and other CITY documents, policies, and programs, including the Single Family Individual Review program, as may be applicable, to ensure compliance with its guidelines. Coordinate work related to planning applications for projects in environmentally sensitive areas. Coordinate with Planning staff and staff of other city departments, consultants, and outside agencies during project reviews and processing. Visit project sites. Prepare written staff reports, ordinances, resolutions, records of land use action, development permit decision letters, conditions of approval, development agreements, environmental documents, and/or other related documents. Attend and give presentations at meetings with applicants, consultants, and the public as needed, including public hearings. Attend and participate in the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) and preliminary review meetings as needed. Prepare and deliver verbal presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council, Architectural Review Board, and/or other City Boards and Committees as needed. Coordinate implementation of development applications during the construction phase (conditions of approval, etc.), as well as tracks conditions after developments have been occupied, to ensure continued compliance with approval conditions and mitigation measures. Prepare maps, graphs, models, presentations, power points, reports, and supporting technical documents. Respond to inquiries from general public, CITY staff, and other public agencies about the projects assigned and CITY’S Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, design guidelines, Coordinated Area Plans, and other CITY documents, policies, and programs. Coordinate annexation applications including related plan services, pre-zoning and other LAFCO related documents. Work with the Code Enforcement Division to resolve code issues. Perform green building related tasks, including but not limited to the review of development plans for compliance with CITY’s and State green building requirements. Oversee the monitoring and maintenance of applicable hardware, software, telephone, and/or other related inventory items. Perform related duties and responsibilities, including assistance staffing the planning counter, when required. CONSULTANT’S staff shall possess the following: Five or more years of professional planning work experience in the public sector. Demonstrable experience in project management in current and/or long range planning, including preparation of notices of completeness and decision letters, staff reports, and (for the long range planning consultants) documents such as General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, Specific Plans, and other planning studies. Ability to work independently, follow directions, seeking clarification prior to completion of work assignment, analyze quantitative data and qualitative information, and think creatively and critically. Demonstrable experience dealing with the public, architects, and applicants during the public review process of entitlement applications. Ability to write well-organized reports regarding complex planning issues. Ability to make professional presentations to the Council, CITY Commissions, and boards. Ability to coordinate and provide assistance, plan checking, and site inspections. For the green building consultants, ensure compliance with State and CITY’S sustainability requirements. Ability to staff the front counter and answer basic zoning and development questions. Costs of CONSULTANT training will be borne by CONSULTANT unless requested by and specific to the CITY. All documents, notes, presentations, and correspondence generated by CONSULTANT as part of this contract are property of CITY. SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide expertise in environmental review on an on-call basis. CONSULTANT staff will serve as project managers (planning entitlements and CEQA/NEPA documents) or as independent technical consultants. CONSULTANT shall, as needed: Serve as project manager for planning entitlements and CEQA/NEPA documents Meet with CITY staff for project status and updates Provide environmental review services and technical expertise Prepare CEQA and/or NEPA studies and documents, (EIR, EIS, MND, ND and CE), in accordance with Local, State, and Federal Statutes Provide accurate and defensible environmental determinations. Review and/or prepare (and/or use sub-consultants, as needed) technical documents including but not limited to the following: Cultural and Historical Evaluations Biological studies Noise Studies Air Quality Studies Transportation Studies Water Quality/Supply Studies Stormwater/Wastewater Control and Management Hazards and Hazardous Materials Studies Green House Gas emissions Prepare Environmental Mitigation Studies/Reports Coordinate with Planning Staff, other CITY departments, sub-consultants, and outside agencies Coordinate and distribute environmental documents and notices Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Attend and give presentations at public meetings, when applicable and upon request Respond to public inquiries as directed by planning staff Perform related duties and responsibilities as required CONSULTANT staff shall possess the following: • Demonstrable CEQA experience in terms of (1) writing Initial Studies, CEQA resolutions, and related material; (2) evaluating EIRs for consistency and compliance with CEQA; and (3) monitoring mitigation compliance Ability to manage the environmental review process in close coordination with CITY staff and outside agencies. Experience working with the public, applicants and CITY’S various commissions and boards during the public review process. Although not necessary, CITY prefers CONSULTANT staff to have experience in planning review. Costs of CONSULTANT training will be borne by CONSULTANT unless requested by and specific to the CITY. All documents, notes, presentations, and correspondence generated by CONSULTANT as part of this contract are property of CITY. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4328) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: CALNET2 AT&T Contract Extension Approval Title: Approval to Extend CALNET2 State Contract with AT&T for Telecommunications in an Amount Not to Exceed $400,000 Annually, Contract: C10133753 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the necessary documentation to continue to utilize the State of California extended CALNET2 Contracts with AT&T (contract C10133753) for city-wide telecommunications services, term: January 30, 2014 and ending January 29, 2016 in an amount not to exceed $400,000 per year subject to annual appropriation of funds. Background On October 20, 2009, the Finance Committee forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to direct staff to pursue a CALNET2 contract for telecommunications services. The action was in response to the City’s Auditors audit of telephone rates that was presented to the Finance Committee on September 8, 2009 and the full Council on November 2, 2009. The City entered into the State of California CALNET2 contract on November 18, 2009, with Council approval (CMR: 427:09 attached). The CALNET2 contracts allowed for lower telecommunication rates as well as consolidated billing. In previous years, it was estimated that $540,000 was spent on services with AT&T annually. Based upon the Auditor’s Office calculations, the City could save approximately $235,000 annually by executing the CALNET2 contract. The term of the original CALNET2 contract was from January 30, 2007 and extended City of Palo Alto Page 2 through January 29, 2014 (Attached Files: MSA1Amend16 012914.pdf and MSA2Amend7 012914.pdf). State contract CALNET3 is assumed to be CALNET2’s replacement; however, at this time, the State has not fully executed CALNET3. Instead, the State approved the extension of CALNET2 on January 23, 2014 for two more years (January 30, 2014 – January 29, 2016). Discussion The State of California performed a competiive bid process for telecommunications services (RFP DGS-2053) which resulted in the execution of four Master Service Agreements (MSAs) collectively referred to as the CALNET2 contracts. There are approximately 1,800 agencies Statewide using CALNET2 services. Summary of CALNET2 Plan The services that the City utilizes are: MSA 1 (Module 1) – Core Services This Module encompasses voice and data services such as, business access lines, central office trunks, and T1s. MSA 2 (Module 2) – Long Distance Service for Voice This Module includes services such as long distance voice network services and functionality consisting of inter-state and international calling. Resource Impact The costs for this contract, $400,000 annually, were included in the Adopted FY 2014 Technology Fund Budget and assumed as part of the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Technology Fund Budget. No additional funding is needed for this contract amendment. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Approved Amendment MSA2 CALNET2 - Extension (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Approved Amendment MSA1 CALNET2 - Extension (PDF) MSA1Amend16 012914 (PDF) MSA2Amend7 012914 (PDF) CMR 427-09 (PDF) 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 1 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 6.1.3.2.5 Service Identifier: Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and Wide Area Network (WAN) Services Attachment 4 Pricing is for standard components only, additional buildout shall be considered on an ICB basis. Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge GigaMAN® GigaMAN Local Distribution Channel LNVX5 $ 1,350.00 $ 2,280.00 Per Channel N/A GigaMAN Repeater VU4X5 N/A $ 550.00 per additional repeater N/A GigaMAN Inter-Office Mileage - Variable 1L5X3 N/A $ 10.00 per mile N/A GigaMAN Inter-Office Mileage Fixed 1L5X3 $ - $ 160.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Channel Termination Diversity (Local Channel Diversity) CPAL5 $ - $ 600.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Alternate Wire Center Diversity CPAA5 $ - $ 960.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Inter-Wire Center Diversity CPAT5 $ - $ 475.00 circuit N/A GigaMAN Equipment Only Protection CPAE3 $ 625.00 $ 840.00 channel N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 2 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge GigaMAN Equipment plus Alternate Wire Center Path Protection CPAF3 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,280.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Equipment plus Channel Termination Path Protection CPAG3 $ 1,225.00 $ 1,140.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Inter-Wire Center Path Protection CPAH3 $ 625.00 $ 120.00 channel N/A GigaMAN Power Protection VBBG3 $ 475.00 $ 384.00 rack or cabinet N/A GigaMAN Administration Charge NRBAO $ 46.00 N/A order N/A DecaMAN® DecaMAN Local Distribution Channel LAN-PHY 1RSTX $ 1,500.00 $ 8,400.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Local Distribution Channel WAN-PHY 1RSTX $ 1,500.00 $ 10,560.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Interoffice Channel Mileage - Fixed JZ68S N/A $ 1,260.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Interoffice Channel Mileage - Variable JZ68S N/A $ 175.00 mile N/A DecaMAN Repeater VU4 N/A $ 1,920.00 per additional repeater N/A DecaMAN Channel Termination Diversity (Local Channel Diversity) CPALX $ 850.00 $ 2,160.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Alternate Wire Center Diversity CPAAX $ 950.00 $ 3,456.00 channel N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 3 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge DecaMAN Inter-Wire Center Diversity CPATX $ 700.00 $ 1,440.00 circuit N/A DecaMAN Equipment Only Protection CPAEX $ 3,000.00 $ 5,880.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Equipment plus Alternate Wire Center Path Protection CPAFX $ 4,500.00 $ 8,832.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Equipment plus Channel Termination Path Protection CPAGX $ 4,200.00 $ 7,920.00 channel N/A DecaMAN Inter-Wire Center Path Protection CPAHX $ 625.00 $ 480.00 circuit N/A DecaMAN Power Protection VBBGX $ 475.00 $ 420.00 rack or cabinet N/A DecaMAN Administration Charge NRBAO $ 46.00 N/A order N/A FibreMAN® FibreMAN Local Distribution Channel - 1 Gbps 25P8X $ 1,500.00 $ 2,850.00 channel N/A FibreMAN Local Distribution Channel - 2 Gbps 25P9X $ 1,500.00 $ 4,000.00 channel N/A FibreMAN Repeater VU4 $ - $ 1,150.00 per additional repeater N/A FibreMAN Alternate Wire Center Diversity AVOYX $ - $ 1,200.00 channel N/A FibreMAN Channel Termination Diversity (Local Channel Diversity) DJVYX $ - $ 750.00 channel N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 4 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge FibreMAN Inter-Wire Center Diversity DEQYX $ - $ 500.00 circuit N/A FibreMAN Inter-Office Mileage - Fixed JZ4XS $ - $ 200.00 channel N/A FibreMAN Inter-Office Mileage - Variable JZ4XS $ - $ 100.00 mile N/A MON Ring MON Ring Customer Prem Node F2ND1 $ - $ 4,680.00 node N/A MON Ring Customer Prem Node F2NDS $ - $ 3,510.00 node N/A MON Ring Central Office Node F2NC1 $ - $ 4,680.00 node N/A MON Ring Central Office Node F2NCS $ - $ 3,510.00 node N/A MON Ring Interoffice Mileage 1L5X5 $ - $ 195.00 ring N/A MON Bulk Power CBVDX $ - $ 1,240.00 node N/A MON Bulk Power CVBDS $ - $ 992.00 node N/A MON Ring Central Office Optical Amplifier - Per location C-Band 67QXX $ - $ 3,240.00 amplifier N/A MON Ring Central Office Optical Amplifier - Per location L-Band 67QSX $ - $ 3,240.00 amplifier N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 5 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge MON Ring Central Office Regenerator V8RXX $ - $ 4,500.00 regenerator N/A MON Ring Central Office Regenerator V8R2C $ - $ 9,000.00 regenerator N/A MON Ring Port ETR Unprotected POYKW $ - $ 585.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Fibre Channel POYNW $ - $ 720.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Fibre Channel Protected POYNP $ - $ 1,440.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Fibre Channel 2G POYYW $ - $ 1,020.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Fibre Channel 2G Protected POYYP $ - $ 2,040.00 port N/A MON Ring Port FICON POYMW $ - $ 585.00 port N/A MON Ring Port FICON Protected POYMP $ - $ 1,170.00 port N/A MON Ring Port FICON 2G POYWW $ - $ 1,020.00 port N/A MON Ring Channel Port FICON 2G POYWP $ - $ 2,040.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Gigabit Ethernet POYLW $ - $ 720.00 port N/A MON Ring Port Gigabit Ethernet Protected POYLP $ - $ 1,440.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 6 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge MON Ring Port 10W Gigabit Ethernet POYTW $ - $ 9,000.00 port N/A MON Ring Port 10W Gigabit Ethernet Protected POYTP $ - $ 12,000.00 port N/A MON Ring Port 10L Gigabit Ethernet POYUW $ - $ 9,225.00 port N/A MON Ring Port 10L Gigabit Ethernet Protected POYUP $ - $ 12,300.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 12/OC-12c POYFW $ - $ 780.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 12/OC-12c Protected POYFP $ - $ 1,560.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 48/OC-48c POYGW $ - $ 2,640.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 48/OC-48c Protected POYGP $ - $ 3,960.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 192/OC-192c POYOW $ - $ 9,000.00 port N/A MON Ring Port SONET OC- 192/OC-192c Protected POYOP $ - $ 12,000.00 port N/A MON Ring Fibre Channel SRM Port POY6W $ - $ 300.00 port N/A MON Ring FibreChannel SRM Port Protected POY6P $ - $ 600.00 port N/A MON Ring Ficon SRM Port POY7W $ - $ 240.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 7 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge MON Ring Ficon SRM Port Protected POY7P $ - $ 480.00 port N/A MON Gigabit Ethernet SRM Port POY4W $ - $ 300.00 port N/A MON Gigabit Ethernet SRM Port Protected POY4P $ - $ 600.00 port N/A MON SONET OC-12/OC-12c SRM Port POY5W $ - $ 300.00 port N/A MON SONET OC-12/OC-12c SRM Port Protected POY5P $ - $ 600.00 port N/A MON SONET OC-3/OC-3c SRM Port POYEW $ - $ 60.00 port N/A MON SONET OC-3/OC-3c SRM Port POYEP $ - $ 60.00 port N/A MON ESCON SRM Port POYHW $ - $ 60.00 port N/A MON ESCON SRM Port Protected POYHP $ - $ 60.00 port N/A OPT-E-MAN® OPT-E-MAN Basic Connection 10/100 Mbps P9FEX N/A $ 323.61 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Basic Connection Gigabit Ethernet P9FGX N/A $ 681.66 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps P9FFX N/A $ 323.61 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 8 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OPT-E-MAN Basic Plus Connection Gigabit Ethernet P9FHX N/A $ 681.66 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Additional MAC Addresses (51-100) M2CAX N/A $ 4.00 N/A OPT-E-MAN Repeater Service VU4 N/A $ 260.00 repeater N/A OPT-E-MAN Service Order Change Charge NHCEO $ 75.00 N/A N/A OPT-E-MAN Miscellaneous Change Charge NHCEN $ 50.00 N/A N/A OPT-E-MAN Service Order Cancellation Charge OGCEO $ 200.00 N/A N/A OPT-E-MAN Expedite Charge EODEO $ 300.00 N/A N/A OPT-E-MAN Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) OMEVC $ - $ - virtual circuit N/A Best Effort Grade of Service OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Best Effort R6E2E N/A $ 50.02 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Best Effort R6E4E N/A $ 75.04 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Best Effort R6E8E N/A $ 133.41 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 9 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Bronze Grade of Service OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Bronze R6E2B N/A $ 58.85 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Bronze R6E4B N/A $ 88.28 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Bronze R6EAB N/A $ 102.02 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Bronze R6E8B N/A $ 156.95 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Bronze R6EBB N/A $ 305.06 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Bronze R6EDB N/A $ 427.67 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Bronze R6EHB N/A $ 521.84 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Bronze R6ELB N/A $ 616.01 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Bronze R6ENB N/A $ 392.26 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Bronze R6EQB N/A $ 588.54 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps R6ETB N/A $ 686.63 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 10 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Bronze OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Bronze R6EUB N/A $ 735.68 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Bronze R6EZB N/A $ 778.83 port N/A Silver Grade of Service OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Silver R6E2C N/A $ 58.85 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Silver R6E4C N/A $ 88.28 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Silver R6EAC N/A $ 102.02 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Silver R6E8C N/A $ 156.95 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Silver R6EBC N/A $ 368.82 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Silver R6EDC N/A $ 503.20 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Silver R6EHC N/A $ 607.18 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Silver R6ELC N/A $ 711.15 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 11 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Silver R6ENC N/A $ 490.45 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Silver R6EQC N/A $ 784.72 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Silver R6ETC N/A $ 882.81 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Silver R6EUC N/A $ 907.33 port N/A OPT-E-MAN Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Silver R6EZC N/A $ 924.99 port N/A AT&T Switched Ethernet (ASE) Service and Features Basic Service Arrangement (Basic or BSA) Ports ASE (BSA) Connection 10/100 Mbps EYQEX N/A $225.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Connection 1 Gigabit Ethernet EYQFX N/A $632.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Connection 10 Gigabit Ethernet EYQGX N/A $2,280.00 port N/A Basic Service Arrangement Class of Service (CoS) and Committed Information Rate (CIR) Real Time 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 12 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Real Time R6E2XRT N/A $61.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Real Time R6E4XRT N/A $104.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Real Time R6EAXRT N/A $130.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Real Time R6E8XRT N/A $150.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Real Time R6EBXRT N/A $202.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Real Time R6EDXRT N/A $260.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Real Time R6EHXRT N/A $496.40 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Real Time R6ELXRT N/A $561.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Real Time R6ENXRT N/A $356.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Real Time R6EQXRT N/A $514.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Real Time R6ETXRT N/A $680.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Real Time R6EUXRT N/A $775.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Real Time R6EZXRT N/A $877.50 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 13 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Real Time R61BXRT N/A $1,391.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Real Time R61CXRT N/A $1,669.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Real Time R61FXRT N/A $1,971.10 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Real Time R61HXRT N/A $2,318.40 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Real Time R61NXRT N/A $3,045.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Real Time R61RXRT N/A $3,624.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Real Time R61SXRT N/A $3,767.40 port N/A Interactive ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Interactive R6E2XIA N/A $56.40 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Interactive R6E4XIA N/A $98.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Interactive R6EAXIA N/A $122.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Interactive R6E8XIA N/A $140.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Interactive R6EBXIA N/A $188.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 14 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Interactive R6EDXIA N/A $242.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Interactive R6EHXIA N/A $459.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Interactive R6ELXIA N/A $523.60 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Interactive R6ENXIA N/A $330.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Interactive R6EQXIA N/A $479.60 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Interactive R6ETXIA N/A $632.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Interactive R6EUXIA N/A $722.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Interactive R6EZXIA N/A $820.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Interactive R61BXIA N/A $1,301.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Interactive R61CXIA N/A $1,559.40 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Interactive R61FXIA N/A $1,842.30 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Interactive R61HXIA N/A $2,166.60 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Interactive R61NXIA N/A $2,845.10 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 15 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Interactive R61RXIA N/A $3,385.60 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Interactive R61SXIA N/A $3,521.30 port N/A Business Critical-High ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Business Critical High R6E2XBH N/A $48.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Business Critical High R6E4XBH N/A $86.45 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Business Critical High R6EAXBH N/A $110.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Business Critical High R6E8XBH N/A $131.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Business Critical High R6EBXBH N/A $166.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Business Critical High R6EDXBH N/A $220.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Business Critical High R6EHXBH N/A $421.60 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 16 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Business Critical High R6ELXBH N/A $486.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Business Critical High R6ENXBH N/A $317.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Business Critical High R6EQXBH N/A $431.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Business Critical High R6ETXBH N/A $577.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Business Critical High R6EUXBH N/A $667.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Business Critical High R6EZXBH N/A $765.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Business Critical High R61BXBH N/A $1,258.10 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Business Critical High R61CXBH N/A $1,507.65 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Business Critical High R61FXBH N/A $1,781.35 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 17 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Business Critical High R61HXBH N/A $2,095.30 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Business Critical High R61NXBH N/A $2,750.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Business Critical High R61RXBH N/A $3,274.05 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Business Critical High R61SXBH N/A $3,405.15 port N/A Business Critical-Medium ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6E2XBM N/A $39.60 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6E4XBM N/A $74.10 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EAXBM N/A $100.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6E8XBM N/A $122.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Business Critical R6EBXBM N/A $144.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 18 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Medium ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EDXBM N/A $198.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EHXBM N/A $384.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6ELXBM N/A $448.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6ENXBM N/A $304.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EQXBM N/A $382.80 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6ETXBM N/A $522.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EUXBM N/A $612.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Business Critical Medium R6EZXBM N/A $710.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Business Critical R61BXBM N/A $1,214.40 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 19 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Medium ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61CXBM N/A $1,455.90 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61FXBM N/A $1,720.40 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61HXBM N/A $2,024.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61NXBM N/A $2,656.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61RXBM N/A $3,162.50 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Business Critical Medium R61SXBM N/A $3,289.00 port N/A Non-Critical High ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Non-Critical High R6E2XNH N/A $37.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Non-Critical High R6E4XNH N/A $70.30 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 20 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EAXNH N/A $93.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Non-Critical High R6E8XNH N/A $114.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EBXNH N/A $134.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EDXNH N/A $185.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EHXNH N/A $358.70 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Non-Critical High R6ELXNH N/A $418.20 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Non-Critical High R6ENXNH N/A $282.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EQXNH N/A $355.30 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Non-Critical High R6ETXNH N/A $486.25 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EUXNH N/A $570.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Non-Critical High R6EZXNH N/A $660.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Non-Critical High R61BXNH N/A $1,131.60 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 21 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Non-Critical High R61CXNH N/A $1,357.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Non-Critical High R61FXNH N/A $1,603.10 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Non-Critical High R61HXNH N/A $1,886.00 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Non-Critical High R61NXNH N/A $2,475.95 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Non-Critical High R61RXNH N/A $2,947.45 port N/A ASE (BSA) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Non-Critical High R61SXNH N/A $3,064.75 port N/A Per Packet Class of Service (PPCoS) Arrangement Ports N/A ASE (PPCoS) Connection 10/100 Mbps EYQLX N/A $294.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Connection 1 Gigabit Ethernet EYQMX N/A $759.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Connection 10 Gigabit Ethernet EYQNX N/A $2,736.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 22 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Per Packet Class of Service Arrangement Class of Service (CoS) Packages and Committed Information Rate (CIR) Multimedia High ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Multimedia High R6E2XMH N/A $61.20 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Multimedia High R6E4XMH N/A $104.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Multimedia High R6EAXMH N/A $130.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Multimedia High R6E8XMH N/A $150.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Multimedia High R6EBXMH N/A $202.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Multimedia High R6EDXMH N/A $260.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Multimedia High R6EHXMH N/A $496.40 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 23 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Multimedia High R6ELXMH N/A $561.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Multimedia High R6ENXMH N/A $356.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Multimedia High R6EQXMH N/A $514.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Multimedia High R6ETXMH N/A $680.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Multimedia High R6EUXMH N/A $775.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Multimedia High R6EZXMH N/A $877.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Multimedia High R61BXMH N/A $1,391.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Multimedia High R61CXMH N/A $1,669.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Multimedia High R61FXMH N/A $1,971.10 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 24 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Multimedia High R61HXMH N/A $2,318.40 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Multimedia High R61NXMH N/A $3,045.20 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Multimedia High R61RXMH N/A $3,624.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Multimedia High R61SXMH N/A $3,767.40 port N/A Multimedia Standard ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6E2XMS N/A $56.40 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6E4XMS N/A $98.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EAXMS N/A $122.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6E8XMS N/A $140.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps R6EBXMS N/A $188.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 25 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Multimedia Standard ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EDXMS N/A $242.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EHXMS N/A $459.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6ELXMS N/A $523.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6ENXMS N/A $330.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EQXMS N/A $479.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6ETXMS N/A $632.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EUXMS N/A $722.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Multimedia Standard R6EZXMS N/A $820.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps R61BXMS N/A $1,301.80 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 26 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Multimedia Standard ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61CXMS N/A $1,559.40 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61FXMS N/A $1,842.30 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61HXMS N/A $2,166.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61NXMS N/A $2,845.10 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61RXMS N/A $3,385.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Multimedia Standard R61SXMS N/A $3,521.30 port N/A Critical Data ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Critical Data R6E2XCD N/A $39.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Critical Data R6E4XCD N/A $74.10 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 27 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Critical Data R6EAXCD N/A $100.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Critical Data R6E8XCD N/A $122.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Critical Data R6EBXCD N/A $144.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Critical Data R6EDXCD N/A $198.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Critical Data R6EHXCD N/A $384.20 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Critical Data R6ELXCD N/A $448.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps Critical Data R6ENXCD N/A $304.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Critical Data R6EQXCD N/A $382.80 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Critical Data R6ETXCD N/A $522.50 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 28 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Critical Data R6EUXCD N/A $612.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Critical Data R6EZXCD N/A $710.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Critical Data R61BXCD N/A $1,214.40 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Critical Data R61CXCD N/A $1,455.90 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Critical Data R61FXCD N/A $1,720.40 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Critical Data R61HXCD N/A $2,024.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps Critical Data R61NXCD N/A $2,656.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Critical Data R61RXCD N/A $3,162.50 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Critical Data R61SXCD N/A $3,289.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 29 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Business Data ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2 Mbps Business Data R6E2XBD N/A $37.20 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4 Mbps Business Data R6E4XBD N/A $70.30 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5 Mbps Business Data R6EAXBD N/A $93.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 8 Mbps Business Data R6E8XBD N/A $114.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10 Mbps Business Data R6EBXBD N/A $134.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 20 Mbps Business Data R6EDXBD N/A $185.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 50 Mbps Business Data R6EHXBD N/A $358.70 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 100 Mbps Business Data R6ELXBD N/A $418.20 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 150 Mbps R6ENXBD N/A $282.00 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 30 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Business Data ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 250 Mbps Business Data R6EQXBD N/A $355.30 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 500 Mbps Business Data R6ETXBD N/A $486.25 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 600 Mbps Business Data R6EUXBD N/A $570.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 1000 Mbps Business Data R6EZXBD N/A $660.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2000 Mbps Business Data R61BXBD N/A $1,131.60 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 2500 Mbps Business Data R61CXBD N/A $1,357.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 4000 Mbps Business Data R61FXBD N/A $1,603.10 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 5000 Mbps Business Data R61HXBD N/A $1,886.00 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 7500 Mbps R61NXBD N/A $2,475.95 port N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 31 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Business Data ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 9500 Mbps Business Data R61RXBD N/A $2,947.45 port N/A ASE (PPCoS) Committed Information Rate – 10000 Mbps Business Data R61SXBD N/A $3,064.75 port N/A Optional Features ASE Additional MAC Addresses (51-100) Per Port M2CBX $0.00 $0.00 port $0.00 ASE Regenerator 10/100 Mbps port EYQHX $0.00 $260.80 port $0.00 ASE Regenerator 1 Gbps port EYQJX $0.00 $260.80 port $0.00 ASE Regenerator 10 Gbps port EYQKX $0.00 $768.00 port $0.00 ASE Administrative Change Charge ORCMX $49.98 $0.00 Per order $49.98 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OPT-E-MAN (OEM) Managed Service Bundles w/ Standard Features 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 32 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge 10/100 Mbps Connection – Bronze CIR Grade of Service OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 2 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB2A $143.00 $751.45 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 2 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB2B $143.00 $1,009.84 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 4 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB4A $143.00 $780.88 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 4 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB4B $143.00 $1,039.27 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 5 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB5A $143.00 $794.62 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 5 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB5B $143.00 $1,053.01 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection OEMB8A $143.00 $849.55 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 33 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge 10/100 Mbps – 8 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 8 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB8B $143.00 $1,107.94 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 10 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB10A $143.00 $997.66 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 10 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB10B $143.00 $1,256.05 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 20 Mbps Bronze w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB20A $143.00 $1,120.27 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 20 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB20B $143.00 $1,378.66 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 50 Mbps Bronze w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB50A $143.00 $1,472.83 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection OEMB50B $143.00 $1,589.38 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 34 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge 10/100 Mbps – 50 Mbps Bronze w Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 100 Mbps Bronze w Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEMB100A $143.00 $1,683.55 Bundle N/A 10/100 Mbps Connection – Silver CIR Grade of Service OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 2 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS2A $143.00 $751.45 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 2 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS2B $143.00 $1,009.84 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 4 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS4A $143.00 $780.88 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 4 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS4B $143.00 $1,039.27 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 5 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS5A $143.00 $794.62 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 35 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 5 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS5B $143.00 $1,053.01 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 8 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS8A $143.00 $849.55 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 8 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS8B $143.00 $1,107.94 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 10 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS10A $143.00 $1,061.42 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 10 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS10B $143.00 $1,319.81 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 20 Mbps Silver w Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS20A $143.00 $1,195.80 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 20 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS20B $143.00 $1,454.19 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 36 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 50 Mbps Silver w Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS50A $143.00 $1,558.17 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 50 Mbps Silver w Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS50B $143.00 $1,674.72 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 10/100 Mbps – 100 Mbps Silver w Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEMS100A $143.00 $1,778.69 Bundle N/A 1 Gbps Connection – Bronze CIR Grade of Service OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 2 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG2A $143.00 $1,125.19 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 2 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG2B $143.00 $1,383.58 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 4 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG4A $143.00 $1,154.62 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 OEMBG4B $143.00 $1,413.01 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 37 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Gbps – 4 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 5 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG5A $143.00 $1,168.36 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 5 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG5B $143.00 $1,426.75 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 8 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG8A $143.00 $1,223.29 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 8 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG8B $143.00 $1,481.68 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 10 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG10A $143.00 $1,371.40 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 10 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG10B $143.00 $1,629.79 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 OEMBG20A $143.00 $1,494.01 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 38 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Gbps – 20 Mbps Bronze w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 20 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG20B $143.00 $1,752.40 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Bronze w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG50A $143.00 $1,846.57 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Bronze w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG50B $143.00 $1,963.12 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Bronze w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG50C $143.00 $2,348.44 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 100 Mbps Bronze w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG100A $143.00 $2,057.29 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 100 Mbps Bronze w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG100B $143.00 $2,442.61 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 OEMBG150A $143.00 $1,833.64 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 39 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Gbps – 150 Mbps Bronze w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 150 Mbps Bronze w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG150B $143.00 $2,218.96 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 250 Mbps Bronze w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG200A $143.00 $2,415.14 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 250 Mbps Bronze w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG250B $143.00 $2,836.58 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 500 Mbps Bronze w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG500A $143.00 $2,934.67 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 600 Mbps Bronze w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG600A $143.00 $2,983.72 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 1000 Mbps Bronze w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMBG1KA $143.00 $3,026.87 Bundle N/A 1 Gbps Connection – Silver CIR Grade of Service 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 40 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 2 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG2A $143.00 $1,125.19 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 2 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG2B $143.00 $1,383.58 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 4 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG4A $143.00 $1,154.62 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 4 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG4B $143.00 $1,413.01 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 5 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG5A $143.00 $1,168.36 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 5 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG5B $143.00 $1,426.75 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 8 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG8A $143.00 $1,223.29 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 41 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 8 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG8B $143.00 $1,481.68 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 10 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG10A $143.00 $1,435.16 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 10 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG10B $143.00 $1,693.55 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 20 Mbps Silver w Type 21A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG20A $143.00 $1,569.54 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 20 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG20B $143.00 $1,827.93 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Silver w Type 9A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG50A $143.00 $1,931.91 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Silver w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG50B $143.00 $2,048.46 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 42 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 50 Mbps Silver w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG50C $143.00 $2,433.78 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 100 Mbps Silver w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG100A $143.00 $2,152.43 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 100 Mbps Silver w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG100B $143.00 $2,537.75 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 150 Mbps Silver w Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG150A $143.00 $1,931.73 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 150 Mbps Silver w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG150B $143.00 $2,317.05 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 250 Mbps Silver w Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG250A $143.00 $2,611.32 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 250 Mbps Silver w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG250B $143.00 $3,032.76 Bundle N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 43 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 500 Mbps Silver w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG500A $143.00 $3,130.85 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 600 Mbps Silver w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG600A $143.00 $3,155.37 Bundle N/A OEM Managed Service Bundles Basic or Basic Plus Connection 1 Gbps – 1000 Mbps Silver w Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEMSG1KA $143.00 $3,173.03 Bundle N/A OPT-E-MAN Managed Service Bundle s Life Cycle Management Features and Services Moves, Adds, Changes and Deletes Move Router Site (Inside) - Low Complexity 13092L $600.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Inside) - Medium Complexity 13092M $720.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Inside) - High Complexity 13092H $850.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - Low Complexity 13093L $1,200.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - Medium Complexity 13093M $1,440.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - High Complexity 13093H $1,700.00 N/A Router N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 44 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Router Site Add - Low Complexity 13118L $1,500.00 N/A Router N/A Router Site Add - Medium Complexity 13118M $1,620.00 N/A Router N/A Router Site Add - High Complexity 13118H $1,750.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – Low Complexity 13127L $300.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – Medium Complexity 13127M $360.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – High Complexity 13127H $425.00 N/A Router N/A Site Delete for AT&T Provided Equipment 13119 $0.00 N/A Router N/A Site Insufficiently Prepared to Receive On-Site Services / Vendor Turn-Away 14570 $200.00 N/A Router N/A Cancellation to Receive on Site Services with Less Than Five Business Days notice to AT&T 13109A $200.00 N/A Router N/A Supplementary Professional, Engineering and Technical Services Standard Hours (8AM – 5PM local time) First Hour 13109B N/A $360.00 Hour N/A Standard Hours (8AM – 5PM local time) Subsequent Hours 13109C N/A $180.00 Hour N/A Non-Standard Hours First Hour 13109D N/A $460.00 Hour N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 45 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Non-Standard Hours Subsequent Hours 13109E N/A $230.00 Hour N/A Lost Equipment Charge for AT&T Owned CPE 13054 Residual Value of Lost CPE N/A N/A N/A Router Configuration Changes 14158 $150.00 N/A Router N/A OPT-E-MAN Managed Service Bundle s Optional Up lift Features and Services Router Protocol, Memory and Misc Managed Router Feature Upgrades Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1000 $590.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 28XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1001 $826.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1002 $1,180.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1003 $1,062.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 28XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1004 $1,416.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 46 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1005 $2,065.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 72XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1006 $3,835.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Extra Memory for Enterprise and Advanced Enterprise IOS for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1007 $295.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Port Card for 18XX, 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1008 $236.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra 4 Port Serial Port Adapter Card for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1009 $2,655.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2-Port Fast Ethernet 100Base TX Port Adapter for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1010 $2,242.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 4-Port Ethernet 10BaseT Port Adapter fro 72XX and 73XX managed router feature upgrade MSB1011 $2,655.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port Gigabit Ethernet Port Adapter for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1012 $3,540.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 47 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge 1000BASE-SX Short Wavelength GBIC (Multimode only) for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1013 $295.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX Short Wavelength GBIC (Copper) for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1014 $295.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra 4 port 10/100 Ethernet switch interface card for 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1015 $250.75 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router 10/100 routed port HWIC Card for 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1016 $531.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GE SFP, LC connector LX/LH transceiver for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1017 $587.05 N/A Connector *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX SFP (DOM) for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1018 $324.50 N/A Connector *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 7304 Carrier Card for 7200 Series Port Adapters managed router feature upgrade MSB1019 $737.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Serial Cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1020 $59.00 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 48 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Console Port to CAS cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1021 $20.05 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Fiber Cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1022 $45.89 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Rack Mount Kit managed router feature upgrade MSB1023 $59.00 N/A Kit *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Port for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1024 $324.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Cable for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1025 $259.60 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Copper SFP - SX Cisco 2-Port Gigabit Ethernet Shared Port Adapter for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1026 $6,277.60 N/A Adapter *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2 port 100M Ethernet Cisco 4-Port Fast Ethernet (TX) Shared Port Adapter for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1027 $5,022.08 N/A Adapter *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Adv Ent IOS for DLSw and IPSEC Cisco ASR 1000 Series RP1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1028 $6,277.60 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 49 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Cisco ASR 1000 Series RP1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1029 $6,277.60 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. G2 Series Routers 19xx, 29xx, 39xx managed router feature upgrades GE SFP, LC connector LX/LH transceiver managed router feature upgrade MSB1030 $587.05 N/A Transceiver *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GE SFP, LC connector SX transceiver managed router feature upgrade MSB1031 $295.00 N/A Transceiver *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-T SFP managed router feature upgrade MSB1032 $233.05 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-port 10/100 Routed Port HWIC managed router feature upgrade MSB1033 $531.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GigE high speed WIC managed router feature upgrade MSB1034 $1,180.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port Serial WAN Interface Card managed router feature upgrade MSB1035 $236.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 4-Port 10/100 Ethernet switch interface card managed router feature upgrade MSB1036 $250.75 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 50 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX SFP (DOM) managed router feature upgrade MSB1037 $324.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port 2nd Gen Multiflex Trunk Voice/WAN Int. Card - T1/E1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1038 $767.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2-Port 2nd Gen Multiflex Trunk Voice/WAN Int. Card - T1/E1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1039 $1,180.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 19XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1040 $354.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 19XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1041 $590.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 29XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1042 $413.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 29XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1043 $708.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 39XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1044 $590.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 51 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 39XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1045 $1,180.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. COS device 4 port COS switch managed router feature upgrade MSB1046 $432.47 N/A Switch *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Cable from: OOB modem to: COS/4 managed router feature upgrade MSB1047 $17.70 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Cable from: CO to: Router's Console Port (DB25M-RJ45, 10ft.) managed router feature upgrade MSB1048 $11.83 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. AIM Module 1800/2800/3800 managed router feature upgrade MSB1049 $1,475.00 N/A Module *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. SC type to SC type MMF 62.5 micron 15' for WS-G5484 modules managed router feature upgrade MSB1050 $45.89 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 12 port COS Switch managed router feature upgrade MSB1051 $6,590.60 N/A Switch *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 52 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Optional Architectural Validation Professional Services 13096 N/A $350.00 Hour N/A Dial Backup N/A Analog (POTS) Dial Backup Management 13060A N/A $10.00 Router N/A ISDN Basic Rate Interface (BRI) Dial Backup Management 13060B N/A $10.00 Router N/A ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Dial Backup Management 13060C N/A $25.00 Router N/A TACACS (Terminal Access Controller Access Control System) Read Only Access TACACS Read Only Access – Router Enablement TACACSRE $40.00 N/A Router $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access – Support TACACSRS N/A $18.00 Router N/A TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 1-6 Enabled Employees TACACS1 $0.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 7-12 Enabled Employees TACACS2 $250.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 13 to 25 Enabled Employees TACACS3 $750.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 OPT-E-MAN Managed Services Data Center Stand Alone Routers 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 53 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Legacy Protocol (SNA, DLSw and IPX ) Standalone router Type 20 MSDCRT1 $0.00 $1,324.00 Router $0.00 IPSEC Standalone router Type 24 MSDCRT2 $0.00 $1,084.34 Router $0.00 Traffic Aggregation Standalone router Type 25 MSDCRT3 $0.00 $3,355.44 Router $0.00 Traffic Aggregation Standalone router Type 27 MSDCRT4 $0.00 $1,340.07 Router $0.00 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OPT-E-WAN OPT-E-WAN (OEW) Switched Port Only OEW Switched Port - .5M (IntraState) 84433 $0.00 $40.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - .5M (InterState) 84435 $0.00 $40.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 1M (IntraState) 80326 $0.00 $48.30 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 1M (InterState) 80390 $0.00 $48.30 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 1.5M (IntraState) 84434 $0.00 $48.80 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 54 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port - 1.5M (InterState) 84436 $0.00 $48.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 2M (IntraState) 80327 $0.00 $62.40 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 2M (InterState) 80391 $0.00 $62.40 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 3M (IntraState) 80328 $0.00 $75.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 3M (InterState) 80392 $0.00 $75.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 4M (IntraState) 80329 $0.00 $87.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 4M (InterState) 80393 $0.00 $87.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 5M (IntraState) 80330 $0.00 $109.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 5M (InterState) 80394 $0.00 $109.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 6M (IntraState) 80331 $0.00 $115.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 6M (InterState) 80395 $0.00 $115.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 7M (IntraState) 80332 $0.00 $124.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 7M (InterState) 80396 $0.00 $124.70 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 55 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port - 8M (IntraState) 80333 $0.00 $134.90 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 8M (InterState) 80397 $0.00 $134.90 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 9M (IntraState) 80334 $0.00 $145.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 9M (InterState) 80398 $0.00 $145.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 10M (IntraState) 80335 $0.00 $152.60 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 10M (InterState) 80399 $0.00 $152.60 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 11M (IntraState) 80336 $0.00 $159.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port - 11M (InterState) 80400 $0.00 $159.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 12M (IntraState) 80337 $0.00 $171.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 12M (InterState) 80401 $0.00 $171.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 13M (IntraState) 80338 $0.00 $172.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 13M (InterState) 80402 $0.00 $172.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 14M (IntraState) 80339 $0.00 $172.60 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 56 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port – 14M (InterState) 80403 $0.00 $172.60 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 15M (IntraState) 80340 $0.00 $177.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 15M (InterState) 80404 $0.00 $177.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 16M (IntraState) 80341 $0.00 $182.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 16M (InterState) 80405 $0.00 $182.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 17M (IntraState) 80342 $0.00 $187.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 17M (InterState) 80406 $0.00 $187.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 18M (IntraState) 80343 $0.00 $192.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 18M (InterState) 80407 $0.00 $192.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 19M (IntraState) 80344 $0.00 $197.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 19M (InterState) 80408 $0.00 $197.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 20M (IntraState) 80345 $0.00 $209.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 20M (InterState) 80409 $0.00 $209.70 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 57 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port – 30M (IntraState) 80346 $0.00 $278.50 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 30M (InterState) 80410 $0.00 $278.50 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 40M (IntraState) 80347 $0.00 $336.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 40M (InterState) 80411 $0.00 $336.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 50M (IntraState) 80348 $0.00 $401.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 50M (InterState) 80412 $0.00 $401.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 60M (IntraState) 80349 $0.00 $468.30 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 60M (InterState) 80413 $0.00 $468.30 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 70M (IntraState) 80350 $0.00 $531.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 70M (InterState) 80414 $0.00 $531.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 80M (IntraState) 80351 $0.00 $571.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 80M (InterState) 80415 $0.00 $571.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 90M (IntraState) 80352 $0.00 $623.40 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 58 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port – 90M (InterState) 80416 $0.00 $623.40 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 100M (IntraState) 80353 $0.00 $670.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 100M (InterState) 80417 $0.00 $670.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 150M (IntraState) 80354 $0.00 $973.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 150M (InterState) 80418 $0.00 $973.20 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 200M (IntraState) 80355 $0.00 $1,285.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 200M (InterState) 80419 $0.00 $1,285.00 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 250M (IntraState) 80356 $0.00 $1,511.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 250M (InterState) 80420 $0.00 $1,511.80 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 300M (IntraState) 80357 $0.00 $1,665.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 300M (InterState) 80421 $0.00 $1,665.10 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 350M (IntraState) 80358 $0.00 $1,818.30 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 350M (InterState) 80422 $0.00 $1,818.30 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 59 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Switched Port – 400M (IntraState) 80359 $0.00 $1,971.50 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 400M (InterState) 80423 $0.00 $1,971.50 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 450M (IntraState) 80360 $0.00 $2,124.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 450M (InterState) 80424 $0.00 $2,124.70 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 500M (IntraState) 80361 $0.00 $2,277.90 Port $0.00 OEW Switched Port – 500M (InterState) 80425 $0.00 $2,277.90 Port $0.00 OPT-E-WAN (OEW) Dedicated Port Only OEW Dedicated Port – 550M (IntraState) 80362 $0.00 $2,430.95 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 550M (InterState) 80426 $0.00 $2,430.95 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 600M (IntraState) 80363 $0.00 $2,584.00 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 600M (InterState) 80427 $0.00 $2,584.00 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 650M (IntraState) 80364 $0.00 $2,920.65 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 650M (InterState) 80428 $0.00 $2,920.65 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 60 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Dedicated Port – 700M (IntraState) 80365 $0.00 $3,257.30 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 700M (InterState) 80429 $0.00 $3,257.30 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 750M (IntraState) 80366 $0.00 $3,406.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 750M (InterState) 80430 $0.00 $3,406.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 800M (IntraState) 80367 $0.00 $3,556.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 800M (InterState) 80431 $0.00 $3,556.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 850M (IntraState) 80368 $0.00 $3,712.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 850M (InterState) 80432 $0.00 $3,712.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 900M (IntraState) 80369 $0.00 $3,869.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 900M (InterState) 80433 $0.00 $3,869.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 950M (IntraState) 80370 $0.00 $4,025.25 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 950M (InterState) 80434 $0.00 $4,025.25 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 1G (IntraState) 80371 $0.00 $4,180.80 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 61 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Dedicated Port – 1G (InterState) 80435 $0.00 $4,180.80 Port $0.00 OPT-E-WAN (OEW) Dedicated Port Only OEW Dedicated Port – 1500M (IntraState) 96777 $0.00 $5,943.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 1500M (InterState) 96776 $0.00 $5,943.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 2000M (IntraState) 96779 $0.00 $7,878.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 2000M (InterState) 96778 $0.00 $7,878.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 2500M (IntraState) 96781 $0.00 $9,420.40 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 2500M (InterState) 96780 $0.00 $9,420.40 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 3000M (IntraState) 96783 $0.00 $10,915.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 3000M (InterState) 96782 $0.00 $10,915.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 3500M (IntraState) 96785 $0.00 $12,363.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 3500M (InterState) 96784 $0.00 $12,363.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 4000M (IntraState) 96787 $0.00 $13,772.70 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 62 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Dedicated Port – 4000M (InterState) 96786 $0.00 $13,772.70 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 4500M (IntraState) 96789 $0.00 $15,147.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 4500M (InterState) 96788 $0.00 $15,147.90 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 5000M (IntraState) 96791 $0.00 $16,494.30 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 5000M (InterState) 96790 $0.00 $16,494.30 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 5500M (IntraState) 96793 $0.00 $17,814.80 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 5500M (InterState) 96792 $0.00 $17,814.80 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 6000M (IntraState) 96795 $0.00 $19,112.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 6000M (InterState) 96794 $0.00 $19,112.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 6500M (IntraState) 96797 $0.00 $20,389.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 6500M (InterState) 96796 $0.00 $20,389.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 7000M (IntraState) 96799 $0.00 $21,648.00 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 7000M (InterState) 96798 $0.00 $21,648.00 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 63 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Dedicated Port – 7500M (IntraState) 96801 $0.00 $22,889.20 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 7500M (InterState) 96800 $0.00 $22,889.20 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 8000M (IntraState) 96803 $0.00 $24,114.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 8000M (InterState) 96802 $0.00 $24,114.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 8500M (IntraState) 96805 $0.00 $25,325.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 8500M (InterState) 96804 $0.00 $25,325.50 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 9000M (IntraState) 96807 $0.00 $26,522.60 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 9000M (InterState) 96806 $0.00 $26,522.60 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 9500M (IntraState) 96809 $0.00 $27,707.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 9500M (InterState) 96808 $0.00 $27,707.10 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 10G (IntraState) 96811 $0.00 $28,879.60 Port $0.00 OEW Dedicated Port – 10G (InterState) 96810 $0.00 $28,879.60 Port $0.00 OEW Class of Service Options : CoS 1 Real Time - IntraState 92993 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 64 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 1 Real Time - InterState 92997 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 0.5M See above $0.00 $31.75 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 1M See above $0.00 $37.67 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 1.5M See above $0.00 $38.06 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 2M See above $0.00 $48.67 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 3M See above $0.00 $58.66 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 4M See above $0.00 $68.41 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 5M See above $0.00 $85.18 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 6M See above $0.00 $90.32 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 7M See above $0.00 $97.27 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 8M See above $0.00 $105.22 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 9M See above $0.00 $113.18 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 10M See above $0.00 $119.03 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 11M See above $0.00 $124.10 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 12M See above $0.00 $134.00 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 13M See above $0.00 $134.32 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 14M See above $0.00 $134.63 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 15M See above $0.00 $138.06 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 16M See above $0.00 $141.96 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 17M See above $0.00 $145.86 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 18M See above $0.00 $149.76 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 65 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 1 – 19M See above $0.00 $153.66 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 20M See above $0.00 $163.57 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 30M See above $0.00 $217.23 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 40M See above $0.00 $262.08 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 50M See above $0.00 $312.94 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 60M See above $0.00 $365.27 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 70M See above $0.00 $414.18 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 80M See above $0.00 $445.93 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 90M See above $0.00 $486.25 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 100M See above $0.00 $523.15 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 150M See above $0.00 $759.10 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 200M See above $0.00 $1,002.30 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 250M See above $0.00 $1,179.20 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 300M See above $0.00 $1,298.78 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 350M See above $0.00 $1,418.27 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 400M See above $0.00 $1,537.77 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 450M See above $0.00 $1,657.27 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 500M See above $0.00 $1,776.76 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 550M See above $0.00 $1,896.14 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 600M See above $0.00 $2,015.52 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 650M See above $0.00 $2,278.11 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 66 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 1 – 700M See above $0.00 $2,540.69 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 750M See above $0.00 $2,657.23 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 800M See above $0.00 $2,773.76 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 850M See above $0.00 $2,896.06 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 900M See above $0.00 $3,018.37 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 950M See above $0.00 $3,139.70 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 1G See above $0.00 $3,261.02 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 1500M See above $0.00 $4,635.62 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 2000M See above $0.00 $6,145.39 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 2500M See above $0.00 $7,347.91 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 3000M See above $0.00 $8,514.40 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 3500M See above $0.00 $9,643.84 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 4000M See above $0.00 $10,742.71 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 4500M See above $0.00 $11,815.36 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 5000M See above $0.00 $12,865.55 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 5500M See above $0.00 $13,895.54 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 6000M See above $0.00 $14,907.75 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 6500M See above $0.00 $15,903.81 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 7000M See above $0.00 $16,885.44 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 7500M See above $0.00 $17,853.58 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 8000M See above $0.00 $18,809.31 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 67 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 1 – 8500M See above $0.00 $19,753.89 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 9000M See above $0.00 $20,687.63 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 9500M See above $0.00 $21,611.54 Port $0.00 CoS 1 – 10G See above $0.00 $22,526.09 Port $0.00 COS 2V – Interactive (Video) (IntraState) 92994 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 COS 2V – Interactive (Video) (InterState) 92998 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 0.5M See above $0.00 $31.75 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 1M See above $0.00 $37.67 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 1.5M See above $0.00 $38.06 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 2M See above $0.00 $48.67 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 3M See above $0.00 $58.66 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 4M See above $0.00 $68.41 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 5M See above $0.00 $85.18 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 6M See above $0.00 $90.32 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 7M See above $0.00 $97.27 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 8M See above $0.00 $105.22 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 9M See above $0.00 $113.18 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 10M See above $0.00 $119.03 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 11M See above $0.00 $124.10 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 12M See above $0.00 $134.00 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 68 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 2V – 13M See above $0.00 $134.32 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 14M See above $0.00 $134.63 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 15M See above $0.00 $138.06 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 16M See above $0.00 $141.96 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 17M See above $0.00 $145.86 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 18M See above $0.00 $149.76 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 19M See above $0.00 $153.66 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 20M See above $0.00 $163.57 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 30M See above $0.00 $217.23 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 40M See above $0.00 $262.08 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 50M See above $0.00 $312.94 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 60M See above $0.00 $365.27 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 70M See above $0.00 $414.18 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 80M See above $0.00 $445.93 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 90M See above $0.00 $486.25 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 100M See above $0.00 $523.15 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 150M See above $0.00 $759.10 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 200M See above $0.00 $1,002.30 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 250M See above $0.00 $1,179.20 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 300M See above $0.00 $1,298.78 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 350M See above $0.00 $1,418.27 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 69 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 2V – 400M See above $0.00 $1,537.77 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 450M See above $0.00 $1,657.27 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 500M See above $0.00 $1,776.76 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 550M See above $0.00 $1,896.14 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 600M See above $0.00 $2,015.52 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 650M See above $0.00 $2,278.11 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 700M See above $0.00 $2,540.69 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 750M See above $0.00 $2,657.23 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 800M See above $0.00 $2,773.76 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 850M See above $0.00 $2,896.06 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 900M See above $0.00 $3,018.37 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 950M See above $0.00 $3,139.70 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 1G See above $0.00 $3,261.02 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 1500M See above $0.00 $4,635.62 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 2000M See above $0.00 $6,145.39 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 2500M See above $0.00 $7,347.91 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 3000M See above $0.00 $8,514.40 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 3500M See above $0.00 $9,643.84 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 4000M See above $0.00 $10,742.71 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 4500M See above $0.00 $11,815.36 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 5000M See above $0.00 $12,865.55 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 70 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 2V – 5500M See above $0.00 $13,895.54 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 6000M See above $0.00 $14,907.75 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 6500M See above $0.00 $15,903.81 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 7000M See above $0.00 $16,885.44 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 7500M See above $0.00 $17,853.58 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 8000M See above $0.00 $18,809.31 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 8500M See above $0.00 $19,753.89 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 9000M See above $0.00 $20,687.63 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 9500M See above $0.00 $21,611.54 Port $0.00 CoS 2V – 10G See above $0.00 $22,526.09 Port $0.00 COS 3 – Business Critical Medium (IntraState) 92995 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 COS 3 – Business Critical Medium (InterState) 92999 $0.00 See below Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 0.5M See above $0.00 $15.87 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 1M See above $0.00 $18.84 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 1.5M See above $0.00 $19.03 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 2M See above $0.00 $24.34 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 3M See above $0.00 $29.33 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 4M See above $0.00 $34.20 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 5M See above $0.00 $42.59 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 6M See above $0.00 $45.16 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 71 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 3 – 7M See above $0.00 $48.63 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 8M See above $0.00 $52.61 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 9M See above $0.00 $56.59 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 10M See above $0.00 $59.51 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 11M See above $0.00 $62.05 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 12M See above $0.00 $67.00 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 13M See above $0.00 $67.16 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 14M See above $0.00 $67.31 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 15M See above $0.00 $69.03 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 16M See above $0.00 $70.98 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 17M See above $0.00 $72.93 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 18M See above $0.00 $74.88 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 19M See above $0.00 $76.83 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 20M See above $0.00 $81.78 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 30M See above $0.00 $108.62 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 40M See above $0.00 $131.04 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 50M See above $0.00 $156.47 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 60M See above $0.00 $182.64 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 70M See above $0.00 $207.09 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 80M See above $0.00 $222.96 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 90M See above $0.00 $243.13 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 72 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 3 – 100M See above $0.00 $261.57 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 150M See above $0.00 $379.55 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 200M See above $0.00 $501.15 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 250M See above $0.00 $589.60 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 300M See above $0.00 $649.39 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 350M See above $0.00 $709.14 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 400M See above $0.00 $768.89 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 450M See above $0.00 $828.63 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 500M See above $0.00 $888.38 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 550M See above $0.00 $948.07 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 600M See above $0.00 $1,007.76 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 650M See above $0.00 $1,139.05 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 700M See above $0.00 $1,270.35 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 750M See above $0.00 $1,328.61 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 800M See above $0.00 $1,386.88 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 850M See above $0.00 $1,448.03 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 900M See above $0.00 $1,509.18 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 950M See above $0.00 $1,569.85 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 1G See above $0.00 $1,630.51 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 1500M See above $0.00 $2,317.81 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 2000M See above $0.00 $3,072.69 Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 73 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge CoS 3 – 2500M See above $0.00 $3,673.96 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 3000M See above $0.00 $4,257.20 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 3500M See above $0.00 $4,821.92 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 4000M See above $0.00 $5,371.35 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 4500M See above $0.00 $5,907.68 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 5000M See above $0.00 $6,432.78 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 5500M See above $0.00 $6,947.77 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 6000M See above $0.00 $7,453.88 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 6500M See above $0.00 $7,951.91 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 7000M See above $0.00 $8,442.72 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 7500M See above $0.00 $8,926.79 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 8000M See above $0.00 $9,404.66 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 8500M See above $0.00 $9,876.95 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 9000M See above $0.00 $10,343.81 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 9500M See above $0.00 $10,805.77 Port $0.00 CoS 3 – 10G See above $0.00 $11,263.04 Port $0.00 CoS 4 Non Critical High (IntraState) 92996 Included Included Port $0.00 CoS 4 Non Critical High (InterState) 93000 Included Included Port $0.00 Other Non-Recurring Charges: OPT-E-WAN Bandwidth Setup (IntraState) 80372 $0.00 N/A Port $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 74 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OPT-E-WAN Bandwidth Setup (InterState) 80436 $0.00 N/A Port $0.00 CoS Service Establishment (IntraState) 80376 $0.00 N/A Port $0.00 CoS Service Establishment (InterState) 80440 $0.00 N/A Port $0.00 Additional MAC Addresses, EVCs/VLANs (50 per site) (IntraState) 80385 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 Additional MAC Addresses, EVCs/VLANs (50 per site) (InterState) 80443 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 Initial Service Order Change Charge (IntraState) 80386 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 Initial Service Order Change Charge (InterState) 80444 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 Service Order Cancellation (IntraState) 80387 $0.00 N/A Per location $0.00 Service Order Cancellation (InterState) 80445 $0.00 N/A Per location $0.00 Miscellaneous Change Charge (IntraState) 80388 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 Miscellaneous Change Charge (InterState) 80446 $0.00 N/A Per order $0.00 OPT-E-WAN Site Termination Charge (IntraState) 80389 $0.00 N/A Per location $0.00 OPT-E-WAN Site Termination Charge (InterState) 80447 $0.00 N/A Per location $0.00 Other Features: 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 75 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Diverse POP Service Set-Up Charge (IntraState) 80384 $1,000.00 N/A Port $0.00 Diverse POP Service Set-Up Charge (InterState) 80442 $1,000.00 N/A Port $0.00 Diverse Line Card (IntraState) 93013 N/A 10% of Port MRC Card N/A Diverse Line Card (InterState) 93014 N/A 10% of Port MRC Card N/A POP Diversity (IntraState) 93018 N/A 10% of Port MRC Port N/A POP Diversity (InterState) 93019 N/A 10% of Port MRC Port N/A OPT-E-WAN (OEW) Managed Service Bundles w/ Standard Features OEW Managed Service Bundle - .5M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS05A $143.00 $792.15 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - .5M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS05B $143.00 $1,050.54 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 1M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS1A $143.00 $799.75 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 1M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS1B $143.00 $1,058.14 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle – 1.5M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS015A $143.00 $800.25 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle – 1.5M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS015B $143.00 $1,058.64 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 2M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS2A $143.00 $813.85 Bundle $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 76 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 2M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS2B $143.00 $1,072.24 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 3M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS3A $143.00 $856.08 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 3M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS3B $143.00 $1,114.47 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 4M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS4A $143.00 $868.58 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 4M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS4B $143.00 $1,126.97 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 5M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS5A $143.00 $903.82 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 5M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS5B $143.00 $1,162.21 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 6M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS6A $143.00 $965.35 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 6M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS6B $143.00 $1,223.74 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 7M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS7A $143.00 $974.25 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 7M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS7B $143.00 $1,232.64 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 8M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS8A $143.00 $984.45 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 8M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS8B $143.00 $1,242.84 Bundle $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 77 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 9M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS9A $143.00 $1,206.52 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 9M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS9B $143.00 $1,464.91 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 10M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS10A $143.00 $1,214.02 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 10M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS10B $143.00 $1,472.41 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 11M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS11A $143.00 $1,354.90 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 11M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS11B $143.00 $1,613.29 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 12M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS12A $143.00 $1,367.60 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 12M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS12B $143.00 $1,625.99 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 13M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS13A $143.00 $1,368.00 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 13M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS13B $143.00 $1,626.39 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 14M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS14A $143.00 $1,368.40 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 14M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS14B $143.00 $1,626.79 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 15M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS15A $143.00 $1,372.80 Bundle $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 78 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 15M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS15B $143.00 $1,631.19 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 16M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS16A $143.00 $1,377.80 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 16M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS16B $143.00 $1,636.19 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 17M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS17A $143.00 $1,382.80 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 17M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS17B $143.00 $1,641.19 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 18M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS18A $143.00 $1,387.80 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 18M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS18B $143.00 $1,646.19 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 19M w / Type 7A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS19A $143.00 $1,392.80 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 19M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS19B $143.00 $1,651.19 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 20M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS20A $143.00 $1,405.50 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 20M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS20B $143.00 $1,663.89 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 30M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS30A $143.00 $1,836.67 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 30M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS30B $143.00 $1,953.22 Bundle $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 79 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 40M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS40A $143.00 $1,894.17 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 40M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS40B $143.00 $2,010.72 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 50M w / Type 22A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS50A $143.00 $1,959.37 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 50M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS50B $143.00 $2,075.92 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 60M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS60A $143.00 $2,246.99 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 70M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS70A $143.00 $2,309.69 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 80M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS80A $143.00 $2,350.39 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 90M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS90A $143.00 $2,402.09 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 100M w / Type 10A Router Cu Ethernet OEWMS100A $143.00 $2,449.39 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 150M w / Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS150A $143.00 $2,904.93 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 150M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS150B $143.00 $3,290.25 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 200M w / Type 11A Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS200A $143.00 $3,511.00 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 200M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS200B $143.00 $3,896.32 Bundle $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 80 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 250M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS250A $143.00 $4,123.12 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 250M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS250B $143.00 $4,544.56 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 300M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS300A $143.00 $4,374.51 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 300M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS300B $143.00 $4,795.95 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 350M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS350A $143.00 $4,949.15 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 400M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS400A $143.00 $5,102.35 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 450M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS450A $143.00 $5,255.55 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 500M w / Type 27 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS500A $143.00 $5,408.75 Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 550M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS550A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 550M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS550B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 600M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS600A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 600M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS600B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 650M w / Type 11 Router Fiber OEWMS650A ICB ICB Bundle ICB 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 81 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Ethernet OEW Managed Service Bundle - 650M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS650B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 700M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS700A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 700M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS700B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 750M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS750A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 750M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS750B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 800M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS800A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 800M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS800B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 850M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS850A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 850M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS850B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 900M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS900A ICB ICB Bundle ICB 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 82 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge OEW Managed Service Bundle - 900M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS900B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 950M w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS950A ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 950M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS950B ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OEW Managed Service Bundle - 1G w / Type 11 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS1KA ICB ICB Bundle ICB OEW Managed Service Bundle - 1000M w / Type 26 Router Fiber Ethernet OEWMS1KB ICB ICB Bundle $0.00 OPT-E-WAN Managed Service Bundle s Life Cycle Management Features and Services Moves, Adds, Changes and Deletes Move Router Site (Inside) - Low Complexity 13092L $600.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Inside) - Medium Complexity 13092M $720.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Inside) - High Complexity 13092H $850.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - Low Complexity 13093L $1,200.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - Medium Complexity 13093M $1,440.00 N/A Router N/A Move Router Site (Outside) - High 13093H $1,700.00 N/A Router N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 83 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Complexity Router Site Add - Low Complexity 13118L $1,500.00 N/A Router N/A Router Site Add - Medium Complexity 13118M $1,620.00 N/A Router N/A Router Site Add - High Complexity 13118H $1,750.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – Low Complexity 13127L $300.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – Medium Complexity 13127M $360.00 N/A Router N/A Add/Delete Router Boards – High Complexity 13127H $425.00 N/A Router N/A Site Delete for AT&T Provided Equipment 13119 $0.00 N/A Router N/A Site Insufficiently Prepared to Receive On-Site Services / Vendor Turn-Away 14570 $200.00 N/A Router N/A Cancellation to Receive on Site Services with Less Than Five Business Days notice to AT&T 13109A $200.00 N/A Router N/A Supplementary Professional, Engineering and Technical Services Standard Hours (8AM – 5PM local time) First Hour 13109B N/A $360.00 Hour N/A Standard Hours (8AM – 5PM local time) Subsequent Hours 13109C N/A $180.00 Hour N/A Non-Standard Hours First Hour 13109D N/A $460.00 Hour N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 84 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Non-Standard Hours Subsequent Hours 13109E N/A $230.00 Hour N/A Lost Equipment Charge for AT&T Owned CPE 13054 Residual Value of Lost CPE N/A N/A N/A Router Configuration Changes 14158 $150.00 N/A Router N/A OPT-E-WAN Managed Service Bundle s Optional Up lift Features and Services Router Protocol, Memory and Misc Managed Router Feature Upgrades Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1000 $590.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router. Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 28XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1001 $826.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Enterprise Services IOS w/o encryption for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1002 $1,180.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1003 $1,062.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 28XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1004 $1,416.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 38XX series managed MSB1005 $2,065.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 85 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge router feature upgrade existing router Advanced Enterprise Services IOS w encryption for 72XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1006 $3,835.00 N/A Router $150.00* *Applies to Upgrade to existing router Extra Memory for Enterprise and Advanced Enterprise IOS for 18XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1007 $295.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Port Card for 18XX, 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1008 $236.00 N/A Port *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra 4 Port Serial Port Adapter Card for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1009 $2,655.00 N/A Port *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2-Port Fast Ethernet 100Base TX Port Adapter for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1010 $2,242.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 4-Port Ethernet 10BaseT Port Adapter fro 72XX and 73XX managed router feature upgrade MSB1011 $2,655.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port Gigabit Ethernet Port Adapter for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1012 $3,540.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX Short Wavelength GBIC (Multimode only) for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature MSB1013 $295.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 86 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade 1000BASE-SX Short Wavelength GBIC (Copper) for 72XX and 73XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1014 $295.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra 4 port 10/100 Ethernet switch interface card for 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1015 $250.75 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 10/100 routed port HWIC Card for 28XX and 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1016 $531.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GE SFP, LC connector LX/LH transceiver for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1017 $587.05 N/A Connector *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX SFP (DOM) for 38XX series managed router feature upgrade MSB1018 $324.50 N/A Connector *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 7304 Carrier Card for 7200 Series Port Adapters managed router feature upgrade MSB1019 $737.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Serial Cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1020 $59.00 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Console Port to CAS cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1021 $20.05 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 87 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade to existing router. Fiber Cable managed router feature upgrade MSB1022 $45.89 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Rack Mount Kit managed router feature upgrade MSB1023 $59.00 N/A Kit *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Port for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1024 $324.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Extra Serial Cable for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1025 $259.60 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Copper SFP - SX Cisco 2-Port Gigabit Ethernet Shared Port Adapter for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1026 $6,277.60 N/A Adapter *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2 port 100M Ethernet Cisco 4-Port Fast Ethernet (TX) Shared Port Adapter for ASR1000 series managed router feature upgrade MSB1027 $5,022.08 N/A Adapter *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Adv Ent IOS for DLSw and IPSEC Cisco ASR 1000 Series RP1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1028 $6,277.60 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 88 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Cisco ASR 1000 Series RP1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1029 $6,277.60 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. G2 Series Routers 19xx, 29xx, 39xx managed router feature upgrades GE SFP, LC connector LX/LH transceiver managed router feature upgrade MSB1030 $587.05 N/A Transceiver *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GE SFP, LC connector SX transceiver managed router feature upgrade MSB1031 $295.00 N/A Transceiver *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-T SFP managed router feature upgrade MSB1032 $233.05 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-port 10/100 Routed Port HWIC managed router feature upgrade MSB1033 $531.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. GigE high speed WIC managed router feature upgrade MSB1034 $1,180.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port Serial WAN Interface Card managed router feature upgrade MSB1035 $236.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 4-Port 10/100 Ethernet switch interface card managed router feature upgrade MSB1036 $250.75 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 89 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade to existing router. 1000BASE-SX SFP (DOM) managed router feature upgrade MSB1037 $324.50 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 1-Port 2nd Gen Multiflex Trunk Voice/WAN Int. Card - T1/E1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1038 $767.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 2-Port 2nd Gen Multiflex Trunk Voice/WAN Int. Card - T1/E1 managed router feature upgrade MSB1039 $1,180.00 N/A Card *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 19XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1040 $354.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 19XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1041 $590.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 29XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1042 $413.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 29XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1043 $708.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Data IOS for Cisco 39XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1044 $590.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 90 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge upgrade to existing router. Security IOS for Cisco 39XX Series managed router feature upgrade MSB1045 $1,180.00 N/A Router *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. COS device 4 port COS switch managed router feature upgrade MSB1046 $432.47 N/A Switch *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Cable from: OOB modem to: COS/4 managed router feature upgrade MSB1047 $17.70 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Cable from: CO to: Router's Console Port (DB25M-RJ45, 10ft.) managed router feature upgrade MSB1048 $11.83 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. AIM Module 1800/2800/3800 managed router feature upgrade MSB1049 $1,475.00 N/A Module *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. SC type to SC type MMF 62.5 micron 15' for WS-G5484 modules managed router feature upgrade MSB1050 $45.89 N/A Cable *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. 12 port COS Switch managed router feature upgrade MSB1051 $6,590.60 N/A Switch *See Professional Engineering and Technical Services Charges for on-site upgrade to existing router. Optional Architectural Validation Professional Services 13096 N/A $350.00 Hour N/A 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 91 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge Dial Backup Analog (POTS) Dial Backup Management 13060A N/A $10.00 Router N/A ISDN Basic Rate Interface (BRI) Backup Management 13060B N/A $10.00 Router N/A ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Backup Management 13060C N/A $25.00 Router N/A TACACS (Terminal Access Controller Access Control System) Read Only Access TACACS Read Only Access – Router Enablement TACACSRE $40.00 N/A Router $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access - Support TACACSRS N/A $18.00 Router N/A TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 1-6 Enabled Employees TACACS1 $0.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 7-12 Enabled Employees TACACS2 $250.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 TACACS Read Only Access – Enablement 13 to 25 Enabled Employees TACACS3 $750.00 N/A Enabled Employee $150.00 OPT-E-WAN Managed Services Data Center Stand Alone Routers Legacy Protocol (SNA, DLSw and IPX) Standalone router Type 20 MSDCRT1 $0.00 $1,324.00 Router $0.00 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 92 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of measure Change Charge IPSEC Standalone router Type 24 MSDCRT2 $0.00 $1,084.34 Router $0.00 Traffic Aggregation Standalone router Type 25 MSDCRT3 $0.00 $3,355.44 Router $0.00 Traffic Aggregation Standalone router Type 27 MSDCRT4 $0.00 $1,340.07 Router $0.00 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Change Charge CSME CSME Basic Connection 10 Mbps P9FYX $ 1,600.00 $ 967.20 port NRC applies CSME Basic Connection - subsequent 10 Mbps P9FZX $ 1,150.00 $ 725.00 port NRC applies CSME Basic Connection 100 Mbps P9FKX $ 1,925.00 $ 1,246.20 port NRC applies CSME Basic Connection Subsequent 100 Mbps P9FPX $ 1,200.00 $ 1,012.00 port NRC applies CSME Basic Connection 1 Gigabit P9FLX $ 2,500.00 $ 2,717.00 port NRC applies CSME Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) EVNDE $ - $ - virtual circuit CSME Media Access Control (MAC) Addresses M2CAX $ 70.00 $ 5.00 block NRC applies 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 93 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Change Charge CSME Repeater VU4 $ 250.00 $ 320.00 repeater NRC applies CSME Service Order Change Charge NHCEO $ 75.00 N/A N/A CSME Miscellaneous Change Charge NHCEN $ 50.00 N/A N/A CSME Service Order Cancellation Charge OGCEO $ 200.00 N/A N/A CSME Service Expedite Charge EODEO $ 300.00 N/A N/A EPLS-WAN (POP to POP) Requires Ethernet LD Access EPLS-WAN 600Mbps SCRM- OKLD WAN60A $0.00 $4,050.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 600Mbps SCRM- ANHM WAN60B $0.00 $5,153.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 600Mbps SCRM- SNDG WAN60C $0.00 $6,143.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 600Mbps OKLD- ANHM WAN60D $0.00 $4,973.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 600Mbps ANHM- SNDG WAN60E $0.00 $4,050.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 1000Mbps SCRM- OKLD WAN1GA $0.00 $8,100.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 1000Mbps SCRM- ANHM WAN1GB $0.00 $9,482.00 circuit NRC applies 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 94 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Name Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Change Charge EPLS-WAN 1000Mbps SCRM- SNDG WAN1GC $0.00 $10,012.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 1000Mbps OKLD- ANHM WAN1GD $0.00 $9,158.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 1000Mbps ANHM-SNDG WAN1GE $0.00 $8,100.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 10Gbps SCRM-OKLD WAN10GA $0.00 $20,000.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 10Gbps SCRM- ANHM WAN10GB $0.00 $30,000.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 10Gbps SCRM-SNDG WAN10GC $0.00 $30,000.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 10Gbps OKLD- ANHM WAN10GD $0.00 $30,000.00 circuit NRC applies EPLS-WAN 10Gbps ANHM- SNDG WAN10GE $0.00 $20,000.00 circuit NRC applies ETHERNET ACCESS to LONG DISTANCE POP Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Change Charge 100-Base-TX 2 Mbps Ethernet LNET2 $0.00 $450.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 4 Mbps Ethernet LNET4 $0.00 $500.00 Per circuit NRC applies 6.1.3.2.5 – Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) and 95 of 95 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Wide Area Network (WAN) Services 11/29/12 Attachment 4 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Change Charge 100-Base-TX 5 Mbps Ethernet LNET5 $0.00 $540.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 8 Mbps Ethernet LNET8 $0.00 $590.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 10 Mbps Ethernet LNET10 $0.00 $720.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 20 Mbps Ethernet LNET20 $0.00 $860.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 50 Mbps Ethernet LNET50 $0.00 $975.00 Per circuit NRC applies 100-Base-TX 100 Mbps Ethernet LNET100 $0.00 $1,125.00 Per circuit NRC applies 1000-Base-SX/LX 150 Mbps Ethernet LNET150 $0.00 $1,400.00 Per circuit NRC applies 1000-Base-SX/LX 250 Mbps Ethernet LNET250 $0.00 $1,725.00 Per circuit NRC applies 1000-Base-SX/LX 500 Mbps Ethernet LNET500 $0.00 $2,200.00 Per circuit NRC applies 1000-Base-SX/LX 600 Mbps Ethernet LNET600 $0.00 $2,544.90 Per circuit NRC applies 1000-Base-SX/LX 1000 Mbps Ethernet LNET1G $0.00 $3,200.00 Per circuit NRC applies 10G-Base-LSR 10000 Mbps Ethernet LNET10G $0.00 $4,700.00 Per circuit NRC applies See Required CPE and Other Equipment for descriptions of additional equipment and service offered 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 1 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 6.1.7 Service Identifier: Managed Internet Service (MIS) Attachment 3 Description of Service AT&T Managed Internet Service (MIS) is a dedicated Internet access service that provides businesses with high-speed Internet access through communications facilities managed by AT&T. The service consists of a dedicated Internet Port, and separately, transport from the customer site to the nearest AT&T Point-of-Presence (POP). AT&T MIS connects a business’s Local Area Network or application to the Internet. Underlying AT&T MIS is AT&T’s highly reliable transport, the IP connectivity to the customer, and the IP backbone. Customer connectivity to the backbone is provided through the AT&T transport network. Access speeds range from 56 Kbps to 10 Gbps (LAN-PHY), and access methods (priced separately with FCC tariffs) include Private Line, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), and Ethernet connectivity. AT&T provides access service points at more than 600 ACCUNET points of presence (POPs) in the United States. AT&T personnel coordinate the provisioning of the local access circuit for customers. Not all speeds are available in all areas or via all "Access Methods" described below. All DS3, OC-X and Ethernet opportunities must be pre-qualified. Access transport circuits used with MIS are found under DS1 and DS3 services. Ethernet access transport circuits used with MIS are found below. For Ethernet access to MIS where less than 10% of the traffic on the circuit is used for MIS Internet access, OPT-E-MAN may be used. Three service types are available: • AT&T MIS with AT&T Managed Router • AT&T MIS with Customer Managed Router • AT&T Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) with Customer Managed Router – Grandfathered, for existing customers only. Use MIS for new orders. The distinction is whether the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) is provided by AT&T or provided and managed by the customer. At a minimum, the CPE provided to AT&T MIS with Managed Router customers consists of a Router, a CSU/DSU, and a diagnostic Modem providing managed "end-to-end" connectivity to the Internet. Additional CPE components may be required/provided depending upon the configuration. For customers who prefer to manage several elements of their IP service in-house and retain control of the premises equipment, we offer AT&T MIS without the Managed Router. With this offer, the customer is responsible for providing, configuring, installing, maintaining, and managing the premises equipment. MIS with Managed Router customers have the option of Tele-installation or On-site installation (except for speeds of T3 and above where only on-site installation is available, Tele-Install can be used for Ethernet speeds 100 Mbps and below if using electrical interface). If the customer selects tele-installation, the customer is responsible for unpacking and connecting the CPE, with telephone assistance from AT&T if required. With on-site installation, an authorized AT&T Service Technician will unpack, connect, and test the CPE 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 2 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 and completes the cooperative testing with the NOC. Charges apply for On-Site (Managed Router Service), no charge for Tele-Install. Under each AT&T MIS service type - there are 3 types of port billing services are available: 1. Flat Rate Billing Port Only offers a fixed recurring charge. 2. Hi Cap Flex Billing Port Only customers are provisioned with a fully dedicated access circuit, but only pay for actual sustained bandwidth usage—not the full line rate. It differs from the Burstable Billing option in that customers select a minimum monthly bandwidth commitment. 3. With Burstable Billing Port Only, customers only pay for actual sustained bandwidth usage—not the full line rate. Burstable Billing customers can "burst" up to the full capacity of the access circuit when needed and are charged based on usage. For all port types, an access circuit is ordered and billed separate from the port. All new Internet access services will be provisioned with AT&T MIS. AT&T Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) with Customer Managed Router Service is being grandfathered. Existing AT&T DIA Ports may be upgraded subject to bandwidth availability. Ethernet Access is not available for DIA upgrade. The Customer Managed Flat Rate Port pricing for AT&T MIS as shown in Attachment 4 applies to DIA ports, as available. Additional MIS Features Include (priced individually) Class of Service, Additional DNS Admin, Alternate Backbone Node, CPE Redundant Configuration, Managed Firewall Solutions, MIS Access Redundancy Options (MARO), and Secure Email Gateway. FLAT RATE INTERNET PORT Feature Description Identifier AT&T MIS @ 56Kbps 5323 AT&T MIS @ 128Kbps 5324 AT&T MIS @ 256Kbps 5325 AT&T MIS @ 384Kbps 5326 AT&T MIS @ 512Kbps 5327 AT&T MIS @ 768Kbps 5328 AT&T MIS @ 1024 Kbps 5700 AT&T MIS @ 1.544 Mbps (T1) 5701 AT&T MIS @ 2Mbps 5329 AT&T MIS @ 3 Mbps 5702 AT&T MIS @ 3 Mbps NxT1 5702 AT&T MIS @ 4Mbps 5330 AT&T MIS @ 4.5Mbps 5331 AT&T MIS @ 5Mbps 5332 AT&T MIS @ 6Mbps 5333 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 3 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier AT&T MIS @ 6Mbps NxT1 5333 AT&T MIS @ 7Mbps 5334 AT&T MIS @ 7.5 Mbps 5382 AT&T MIS @ 8Mbps 5335 AT&T MIS @ 9Mbps 5336 AT&T MIS @ 9Mbps NxT1 5336 AT&T MIS @ 10 Mbps 5703 AT&T MIS @ 10.5 Mbps 5383 AT&T MIS @ 12 Mbps 5384 AT&T MIS @ 15 Mbps 5704 AT&T MIS @ 20 Mbps 5705 AT&T MIS @ 25 Mbps 5706 AT&T MIS @ 30 Mbps 5707 AT&T MIS @ 35 Mbps 5708 AT&T MIS @ 40 Mbps 5709 AT&T MIS @ 45 Mbps (T3) 5710 AT&T MIS @ 60Mbps (OC3) 5338 AT&T MIS @ 155 Mbps (OC3) 5712 AT&T MIS @ 622 Mbps (OC12) 6528 AT&T MIS @ 2.45 Gbps (OC48) 6837 FLAT RATE INTERNET PORT WITH ROUTER Feature Description Identifier AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 56Kbps 5348 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 128Kbps 5349 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 256Kbps 5350 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 384Kbps 5351 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 512Kbps 5352 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 768Kbps 5353 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 1024 Kbps 5713 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 1.544 Mbps (T1) 5714 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 2Mbps 5354 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 4 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 3Mbps 5355 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 3Mbps NxT1 5355 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 4Mbps 5356 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 4.5Mbps 5357 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 5Mbps 5358 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 6Mbps 5359 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 6Mbps NxT1 5359 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 7Mbps 5360 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 7.5 Mbps 5385 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 8Mbps 5361 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 9Mbps 5362 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 9Mbps NxT1 5362 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 10Mbps 5363 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 10.5 Mbps 5386 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 12 Mbps 5387 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 15Mbps 5364 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 20Mbps 5365 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 25Mbps 5366 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 30Mbps 5367 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 35Mbps 5368 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 40Mbps 5369 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 45Mbps 5370 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 60Mbps 5374 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 155 Mbps (OC3) 5716 AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 622 Mbps (OC12) 6529 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 5 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 2.45 Gbps (OC48) 6840 HI CAP FLEX T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM (ASYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER MODE) Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap T3 2 Mbps 7400 MIS HiCap T3 3 Mbps 7401 MIS HiCap T3 4 Mbps 7402 MIS HiCap T3 5 Mbps 7403 MIS HiCap T3 6 Mbps 7404 MIS HiCap T3 7 Mbps 7405 MIS HiCap T3 8 Mbps 7406 MIS HiCap T3 9 Mbps 7407 MIS HiCap T3 10 Mbps 7408 MIS HiCap T3 15 Mbps 7409 MIS HiCap T3 20 Mbps 7410 MIS HiCap T3 25 Mbps 7411 MIS HiCap T3 30 Mbps 7412 MIS HiCap T3 35 Mbps 7413 MIS HiCap T3 40 Mbps 7414 MIS HiCap T3 45 Mbps 7415 HI CAP FLEX T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM (ASYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER MODE) with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 2 Mbps 7420 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 3 Mbps 7421 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 4 Mbps 7422 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 5 Mbps 7423 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 6 Mbps 7424 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 7 Mbps 7425 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 8 Mbps 7426 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 9 Mbps 7427 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 10 Mbps 7428 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 6 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 15 Mbps 7429 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 20 Mbps 7430 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 25 Mbps 7431 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 30 Mbps 7432 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 7433 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 7434 MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 7435 HI CAP FLEX OC3 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC3 35 Mbps 8050 MIS HiCap OC3 40 Mbps 8051 MIS HiCap OC3 45 Mbps 8052 MIS HiCap OC3 60 Mbps 8053 MIS HiCap OC3 70 Mbps 8054 MIS HiCap OC3 80 Mbps 8055 MIS HiCap OC3 90 Mbps 8056 MIS HiCap OC3 100 Mbps 8057 MIS HiCap OC3 120 Mbps 8058 MIS HiCap OC3 144 Mbps 8059 MIS HiCap OC3 155 Mbps 8060 HI CAP FLEX OC3 - PRIVATE LINE with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 8070 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 8071 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 8072 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 60 Mbps 8073 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 8074 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 8075 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 7 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 8076 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 8077 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 8078 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 8079 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 8080 HI CAP FLEX OC12 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC12 70 Mbps 7500 MIS HiCap OC12 80 Mbps 7501 MIS HiCap OC12 90 Mbps 7502 MIS HiCap OC12 100 Mbps 7503 MIS HiCap OC12 120 Mbps 7504 MIS HiCap OC12 144 Mbps 7505 MIS HiCap OC12 155 Mbps 7506 MIS HiCap OC12 200 Mbps 7507 MIS HiCap OC12 250 Mbps 7508 MIS HiCap OC12 300 Mbps 7509 MIS HiCap OC12 350 Mbps 7510 MIS HiCap OC12 400 Mbps 7511 MIS HiCap OC12 450 Mbps 7512 MIS HiCap OC12 500 Mbps 7513 MIS HiCap OC12 550 Mbps 7514 MIS HiCap OC12 600 Mbps 7515 MIS HiCap OC12 622 Mbps 7516 HI CAP FLEX OC12 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 7525 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 7526 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 7527 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 7528 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 8 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 7529 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 7530 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 7531 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 200 Mbps 7532 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 250 Mbps 7533 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 300 Mbps 7534 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 350 Mbps 7535 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 400 Mbps 7536 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 450 Mbps 7537 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 500 Mbps 7538 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 550 Mbps 7539 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 600 Mbps 7540 MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 622 Mbps 7541 HI CAP FLEX OC48 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC48 600 Mbps 7450 MIS HiCap OC48 622 Mbps 7451 MIS HiCap OC48 700 Mbps 7452 MIS HiCap OC48 800 Mbps 7453 MIS HiCap OC48 1250 Mbps 7454 MIS HiCap OC48 1550 Mbps 7455 MIS HiCap OC48 1850 Mbps 7456 MIS HiCap OC48 2150 Mbps1 7457 MIS HiCap OC48 2450 Mbps1 7458 1Due a technical limitation with the Cisco Gigabit Router cards, actual speed of the service is limited to 1.9 Gbps. Therefore, 1850 Mbps should be the highest "Minimum Bandwidth Commitment" offered to customers at this time. 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 9 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 HI CAP FLEX OC48 - PRIVATE LINE - With Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS HiCap OC48 600 Mbps 7470 MIS HiCap OC48 622 Mbps 7471 MIS HiCap OC48 700 Mbps 7472 MIS HiCap OC48 800 Mbps 7473 MIS HiCap OC48 1250 Mbps 7474 MIS HiCap OC48 1550 Mbps 7475 MIS HiCap OC48 1850 Mbps 7476 MIS HiCap OC48 2150 Mbps1 7477 MIS HiCap OC48 2450 Mbps1 7478 1Due a technical limitation with the Cisco Gigabit Router cards, actual speed of the service is limited to 1.9 Gbps. Therefore, 1850 Mbps should be the highest "Minimum Bandwidth Commitment" offered to customers at this time. HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY Feature Description Identifier MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2 Mbps 8301 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3 Mbps 8302 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4 Mbps 8303 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5 Mbps 8304 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6 Mbps 8305 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7 Mbps 8306 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8 Mbps 8307 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9 Mbps 8308 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 10 Mbps 8309 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 15 Mbps 8310 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 10 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 20 Mbps 8311 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 25 Mbps 8312 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 30 Mbps 8313 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 35 Mbps 8314 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 40 Mbps 8315 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 45 Mbps 8316 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 50 Mbps 8382 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 60 Mbps 8317 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 70 Mbps 8318 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 80 Mbps 8319 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 90 Mbps 8320 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 100 Mbps 8321 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 120 Mbps 8346 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 144 Mbps 8347 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 155 Mbps 8348 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 200 Mbps 8349 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 250 Mbps 8350 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 300 Mbps 8351 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 350 Mbps 8352 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 400 Mbps 8353 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 450 Mbps 8354 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 500 Mbps 8355 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 550 Mbps 8356 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 11 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 600 Mbps 8357 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 622 Mbps 8358 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 700 Mbps 8359 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 800 Mbps 8360 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 900 Mbps 8361 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 1000 Mbps 8362 HI CAP FLEX – 10 Gig ETHERNET PORT ONLY MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 1500 Mbps 8385 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2000 Mbps 8386 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2500 Mbps 8387 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3000 Mbps 8388 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3500 Mbps 8389 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4000 Mbps 8390 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4500 Mbps 8391 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5000 Mbps 8392 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5500 Mbps 8393 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6000 Mbps 8394 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6500 Mbps 8395 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7000 Mbps 8396 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7500 Mbps 8397 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8000 Mbps 8398 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8500 Mbps 8399 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 12 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9000 Mbps 8400 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9500 Mbps 8401 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 10000 Mbps 8402 HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 2 Mbps 8323 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 3 Mbps 8324 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 4 Mbps 8325 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 5 Mbps 8326 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 6 Mbps 8327 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 7 Mbps 8328 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 8 Mbps 8329 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 9 Mbps 8330 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 10 Mbps 8331 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 15 Mbps 8332 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 20 Mbps 8333 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 25 Mbps 8334 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 30 Mbps 8335 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 8336 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 8337 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 8338 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 50 Mbps 8383 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 60 Mbps 8339 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 13 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 8340 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 8341 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 8342 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 8343 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 8365 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 8366 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 8367 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 200 Mbps 8368 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 250 Mbps 8369 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 300 Mbps 8370 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 350 Mbps 8371 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 400 Mbps 8372 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 450 Mbps 8373 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 500 Mbps 8374 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 550 Mbps 8375 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 600 Mbps 8376 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 622 Mbps 8377 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 700 Mbps 8378 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 800 Mbps 8379 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 900 Mbps 8380 MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 1000 Mbps 8381 ETHERNET ACCESS to LONG DISTANCE POP 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 14 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Used with HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY service. Feature Description Identifier 100-Base-TX 2 Mbps Ethernet LNET2 100-Base-TX 4 Mbps Ethernet LNET4 100-Base-TX 5 Mbps Ethernet LNET5 100-Base-TX 8 Mbps Ethernet LNET8 100-Base-TX 10 Mbps Ethernet LNET10 100-Base-TX 20 Mbps Ethernet LNET20 100-Base-TX 50 Mbps Ethernet LNET50 100-Base-TX 100 Mbps Ethernet LNET100 1000-Base-SX/LX 150 Mbps Ethernet LNET150 1000-Base-SX/LX 250 Mbps Ethernet LNET250 1000-Base-SX/LX 500 Mbps Ethernet LNET500 1000-Base-SX/LX 600 Mbps Ethernet LNET600 1000-Base-SX/LX 1000 Mbps Ethernet LNET1G 10G-Base-LSR 10000 Mbps Ethernet LNET10G BURSTABLE T1 - PRIVATE LINE, FRAME RELAY Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable T1 Up to 128 Kbps 7301 MIS Burstable T1 128.01 to 256 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 256.01 to 384 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 384.01 to 512 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 512.01 to full T1 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 15 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 BURSTABLE T1 - PRIVATE LINE, FRAME RELAY - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr Up to 128 Kbps 7302 MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 128.01 to 256 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 256.01 to 384 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 384.01 to 512 Kbps MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 512.01 to full T1 BURSTABLE T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable T3 Up to 6 Mbps 7303 MIS Burstable T3 6.01 to 7.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 7.51 to 9.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 9.01 to 10.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 10.51 to 12.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 12.01 to 13.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 13.51 to 15.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 15.01 to 16.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 16.51 to 18.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 18.01 to 19.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 19.51 to 21.0 Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 16 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 MIS Burstable T3 21.01 to 45.0 Mbps BURSTABLE T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router Up to 6 Mbps 7304 MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 6.01 to 7.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 7.51 to 9.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 9.01 to 10.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 10.51 to 12.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 12.01 to 13.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 13.51 to 15.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 15.01 to 16.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 16.51 to 18.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 18.01 to 19.5 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 19.51 to 21.0 Mbps MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 21.01 to 45.0 Mbps BURSTABLE OC3 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC3 Up to 35 Mbps 7305 MIS Burstable OC3 35.01 to 45 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 45.01 to 55 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 55.01 to 65 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 65.01 to 75 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 75.01 to 85 Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 17 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC3 85.01 to 100 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 100.01 to 125 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 125.01 to 155 Mbps BURSTABLE OC3 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router Up to 35 Mbps 7306 MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 35.01 to 45 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 45.01 to 55 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 55.01 to 65 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 65.01 to 75 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 75.01 to 85 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 85.01 to 100 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 100.01 to 125 Mbps MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 125.01 to 155 Mbps BURSTABLE OC-12- PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC12 Up to 75 Mbps 7307 MIS Burstable OC12 75.01 to 150 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 150.01 to 225 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 225.01 to 300 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 300.01 to 375 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 375.01 to 450 Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 18 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC12 450.01 to 525 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 525.01 to 622 Mbps BURSTABLE OC-12- PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router Up to 75 Mbps 7308 MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 75.01 to 150 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 150.01 to 225 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 225.01 to 300 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 300.01 to 375 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 375.01 to 450 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 450.01 to 525 Mbps MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 525.01 to 622 Mbps BURSTABLE OC-48 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC48 Up to 1250 Mbps 7309 MIS Burstable OC48 1251 to 1350 Mbps MIS Burstable OC48 1351 to 1450 Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 19 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS Burstable OC48 1451 to 1550 Mbps MIS Burstable OC48 1551 to 1650 Mbps MIS Burstable OC48 1651 to 1750 Mbps MIS Burstable OC48 1751 to 1850 Mbps MIS Burstable OC48 1851 to 1950 Mbps* MIS Burstable OC48 1951 to 2050 Mbps* MIS Burstable OC48 2051 to 2150 Mbps* MIS Burstable OC48 2151 to 2250 Mbps* MIS Burstable OC48 2251 to 2350 Mbps* MIS Burstable OC48 2351 to 2450 Mbps* BURSTABLE OC-48 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 Up to 1250 Mbps 7310 MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1251 to 1350 Mbps MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1351 to 1450 Mbps MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1451 to 1550 Mbps MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1551 to 1650 Mbps MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1651 to 1750 Mbps MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1751 to 1850 Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 20 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1851 to 1950 Mbps* MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1951 to 2050 Mbps* MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2051 to 2150 Mbps* MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2151 to 2250 Mbps* MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2251 to 2350 Mbps* MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2351 to 2450 Mbps* Optional Features – Class of Service Description of Service The Class of Service (CoS) feature enables Customer to prioritize traffic among four classes: real-time, high-grade data, medium-grade data, and low-grade data. Each CoS has a specific amount of bandwidth allocation so that all classes can transmit data during congestion. However, if any class does not use its entire bandwidth allocation, packets of other classes can share the unused bandwidth. Customer may select from a number of "profiles" that have predetermined bandwidth allocations for each CoS. CPE Marking and Differentiation The Customer Equipment (CE) has two critical functions in the performance architecture: identification and marking of application traffic flows, and differential queuing into the WAN network. The marking of packets is done by setting specific Diff-Serv Codepoint (DSCP) values within the TOS byte of the IP header. Each marking indicates the type of treatment that a packet should receive from the network. The set of flows that share a common marking, and resulting treatment are referred to as a ‘class’. MIS supports 4 user markings (or classes): Class Marking Behavior COS1 EF CS5 Priority COS2 AF31 CS3 Bursty Data COS3 AF21 CS2 Bursty Data 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 21 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 COS4 Default “0” Best Effort Allocation Profiles For each IP service connection, customers order a pair of ‘allocation profiles’, one to control ingress policing and one to control egress queuing. The profile specifies the amount of bandwidth reserved for each CoS class. When ordering CoS, the allocation profile can be specified as ‘simple’ or ‘complex’. The simple allocation profiles provide a set of the most common allocation profiles. Use of these profiles is suitable for the vast majority of enterprise needs and is highly recommended. The table below shows traffic class allocation options using simple profiles. Priority CoS1 traffic can be allocated from 10-80% of the bandwidth. The remaining classes can use bandwidth not being used by CoS1 in the percentages shown in the table. CoS1 CoS2 CoS3 CoS4 10-80% 80% 10% 10% 10-80% 40% 30% 30% 10-80% 60% 30% 10% On ingress, CoS1 traffic exceeding the allocation is dropped, for the remaining data queues traffic exceeding the allocation is considered ‘out of contract’, and is marked accordingly (i.e. mapped to an e-LSP which has a higher drop probability during core congestion) for transport across the network core. The ingress allocation is defined as a percentage. For most services, the percentage is based on the speed of the access port. On egress, the allocations control the relative servicing of the classes out of the egress port11 toward the customer site. This allocation is only in effect when the total data arrival rate is greater than the port capacity (i.e. the egress port is congested). Each allocation profile defines the percentage of available bandwidth for each CoS class. For any class that is not consuming its full allocation, the excess bandwidth for the class becomes available for the remaining queues in a ratio proportional to their allocation. Note that the CoS1 class is an exception. Traffic is not allowed to exceed its allocation, even if bandwidth is available on the port. CoS1 traffic exceeding the allocation is discarded. Unused COS1 bandwidth is still available for consumption by the remaining data classes. Class of Service (CoS) Option Feature Description Identifier Class of Service 1.5 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOST1 Class of Service MLPPP NxT1 (3 to 12 Mbps) FCOSML Class of Service 10 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS10 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 22 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Class of Service 15 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS15 Class of Service 20 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS20 Class of Service 25 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS25 Class of Service 30 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS30 Class of Service 35 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS35 Class of Service 40 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS40 Class of Service 45 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS45 Class of Service Burstable T1 BCOST1 Class of Service Burstable T3 BCOST3 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex .05-1.5Mbps* *Only Available with Ethernet Access FCOS05 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2 Mbps FCOS2 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3 Mbps FCOS3 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4 Mbps FCOS4 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5 Mbps FCOS5 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6 Mbps FCOS6 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7 Mbps FCOS7 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8 Mbps FCOS8 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9 Mbps FCOS9 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 10 Mbps FCOS10 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 15 Mbps FCOS15 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 20 Mbps FCOS20 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 25 Mbps FCOS25 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 30 Mbps FCOS30 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 35 Mbps FCOS35 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 23 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 40 Mbps FCOS40 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 45 Mbps FCOS45 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex OC3 FCOS155 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 45.1 – 155 Mbps FCOS250 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 200 – 250 Mbps FCOS350 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 300 – 350 Mbps FCOS600 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 400 – 600 Mbps FCOS622 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 622 Mbps FCOS1G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 700 – 1000 Mbps FCOST1 Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 1500 Mbps FCOS15G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2000 Mbps FCOS2G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2500 Mbps FCOS25G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3000 Mbps FCOS3G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3500 Mbps FCOS35G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4000 Mbps FCOS4G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4500 Mbps FCOS45G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5000 Mbps FCOS5G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5500 Mbps FCOS55G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6000 Mbps FCOS6G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6500 Mbps FCOS65G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7000 Mbps FCOS7G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7500 Mbps FCOS75G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8000 Mbps FCOS8G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8500 Mbps FCOS85G 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 24 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9000 Mbps FCOS9G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9500 Mbps FCOS95G Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 10000 Mbps FCOS10G Optional Features – AT&T Secure E-Mail Gateway (SEG) Description of Service AT&T Secure E-Mail Gateway (SEG) is a network-based Security as a Service (SecaaS) offering. SEG protects customers from internal and external email threats that can include: commercial spam, malicious attachments, direct email server connections from spammers and botnet-controlled endpoints, and email embedded URL-based attacks. SEG provides features and tools that enable customers to comply with data privacy and retention regulations, meet legal discovery requirements, and implement data loss prevention strategies. SEG customers retain responsibility and control over much of the configuration and settings for the service. SEG is offered with two different service levels – “Advanced” or “Premium”. SEG Advanced The Secure E-Mail Gateway (SEG) Advanced service helps protect customer networks from inbound messages containing spam, viruses, and malware. The Service provides features that enable customer to manage and enforce its security policy on outbound email content. The Service provides disaster recovery protection against lost email data in the event of a customer email server outage and provides end-user continuity functionality if the customer email server becomes unavailable. SEG is administered by the customer through a self-service web console and provides a suite of reports. SEG requires that the Customer own and manage their own Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) email server or servers. The customer must also own and manage their own internet domain(s) in order to direct email to the Service for filtering. SEG Premium 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 25 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 The SEG Premium Level of Service includes all features of the Secure E-Mail Gateway Advanced service plus additional Premium features. SEG Premium provides enhanced capabilities that enable the Customer to implement more robust outbound email security policies to support their email confidentiality, privacy, and data loss prevention requirements. Messages sent by the Customer can be encrypted automatically through policy or through end-user self initiated encryption. Encrypted messages are delivered for pick-up by an authenticated recipient and can be retrieved up to 30 days from the day they have been sent after which they are destroyed. Optional Feature - Message Archiving The Message Archiving option of the Secure E-Mail Gateway Service provides capabilities that can assist the Customer in complying with company, industry, and government requirements for email retention. Message Archiving is designed to automatically archive all inbound, outbound and internal email message and associated meta data to a secure centralized location and provides search and export functionality. Message Archiving is administered through a customer managed web console and provides a suite of reports. The customer must have a base service (SEG Advanced or SEG Premium) to order the archiving service option. Customers determine how long their e-mails need to be retained to meet business, compliance or legal requirements. The Service will support from 1 year to a maximum of 7 year retention period. Features Table & Descriptions The following summarizes the Features included under the two SEG service levels, as well as detailed descriptions of the features: Feature SEG Advanced SEG Premium Customer Managed Administration Included Included Anti-Virus Protection Included Included Spam Filtering Included Included Policy Enforcement Included Enhanced Quarantine Included Included Disaster Recovery Included Included Transport Layer Security Included Included Administrator Reports Included Included Policy based Encryption Included End-User Initiated Encryption Included Sender Notification Included Web-based Delivery Included 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 26 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Feature SEG Advanced SEG Premium Direct Delivery Included Mobile Device Support Included Standards Support Included Message Archiving Option Option Standard Features – SEG Advanced Customer Managed Administration The primary interface to the SEG Advanced service is the Administration Center web console. This console is available 24 x 7 and allows Customer Administrators to define and manage settings and configurations for their domains, including spam treatment options, virus scanning selections, content filter settings, policy rules and user permissions. Anti-Virus Protection Anti-Virus Protection provides an extensive and redundant anti-virus filtering process that is designed to detect, clean, and record virus infected e-mail messages before they enter the Customer’s network. Virus Protection can be configured to scan all inbound and outbound messages for viruses as recognized by industry standard virus scanning technologies. Spam Filtering Spam Filtering detects Spam e-mail messages before they enter the Customer’s network. Captured spam is routed to the spam quarantine and can be accessed by administrators or end users at any time through a web-based interface. The Customer administrator may configure spam quarantine notification options for messages that have that been quarantined. Policy Enforcement Policy enforcement supports the ability to apply the Customer’s corporate messaging policies on unwanted and malicious content to e-mail messages entering and leaving the Customer’s e- mail system. Policy enforcement features are definable by domain or user level. Content categories that can be filtered for policy include: keyword groups, HTML, spam beacons or web bugs, hyperlinks, attachments, deny and allow lists. The Customer can define text, referred to as an “outbound disclaimer” that will be appended to the email content. The Customer administrator may configure policy enforcement notification options for emails have been identified by policy rules. Quarantine The Service provides multiple quarantine areas with different security access requirements to store and support review of suspect email outside of your email network. Emails that violate configured policies and that have the quarantine action applied are sorted into multiple quarantines. • Spam Quarantined Messages – Accessible to all users, with users with role of User or Reports Manager allowed to access only their own personal spam quarantine • Virus Quarantined Messages – Accessible to only Administrators and Quarantine Managers • Attachment Quarantined Messages – Accessible to only Administrators and Quarantine Managers 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 27 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 • Content Keyword Quarantined Messages – Accessible to only Administrators and Quarantine Managers Disaster Recovery Disaster Recovery provides added protection against lost emails in the case the Customer’s inbound email server may be unavailable to receive email. Disaster recovery provides: • Automatic email fails over and rolling storage for up to sixty (60) days. • Automatic monitoring of Customer’s e-mail server to establish return of service with attempt to deliver the e-mail every 20 minutes. • Automatic forwarding of stored e-mail once Customer’s e-mail service is restored • User access to read and send messages through a web-based interface while messages are in fail-over storage status. Messages can remain in fail-over storage for up to 60 days. Transport Layer Security The SEG Advanced Service supports both forced and opportunistic Transport Layer Security (TLS) connections between the Customer’s email server and the SEG network. TLS is designed to provide basic network level encryption through an encrypted tunnel for message transfer. Administrator Reports Included in the SEG Administration Center console is access to a suite of reports providing a view into the statistics and use of the Service. All mail messages processed by the Service are recorded in these statistical reports, measured on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The reports furnished to Customer depend of the Service components and features in use by the Customer. Standard Features - SEG Premium The SEG Premium Level of Service includes all features of the Secure E-Mail Gateway Advanced service and also includes the additional Premium features described below. SEG Premium provides enhanced capabilities that enable the Customer to implement more robust outbound email security policies to support their email confidentiality, privacy, and data loss prevention requirements. Messages sent by the Customer’s end-users can be encrypted automatically through policy or through end-user self initiated encryption. Encrypted messages and are delivered for pick-up by an authenticated recipient and can be retrieved up to 30 days from the day they have been sent after which they are destroyed. The SEG Premium Service requires Customer acknowledgement that it is the Customer’s responsibility to store or process, in an unencrypted format, any and all messages or attachments which it desires to have unencrypted access after 30 days and/or post-expiration or termination of the Services. 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 28 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Customer Managed Administration SEG Premium policies and features are configured by the Customer administrator through the SEG Premium control console. Enhanced Policy Enforcement A comprehensive set of policy rules to identify email messages can be defined by the Customer including the following examples: • Keyword Rules: Rules based on keywords within the subject line and body of the email. • Regular Expression Rules: Rules based on content such as social security numbers, drivers’ license numbers, credit card numbers, accounting numbers, credit card numbers within the subject line and body of the email message. • Domain & Sender Level Rules: Rules based on sender domains, recipient domains and sender lists. • Regulation Dictionaries: Rules based on HIPAA, SOX and PCI oriented content. • 3rd Party Keyword Library Support: Ability to import 3rd party keyboard libraries such as common drug codes, common drug names, and common profanity keywords. • Keywords such as “Confidential”, “Secure”; • Sender & Recipient Groups such as the Legal Department in a company, Executives, HR Business Partners. A comprehensive set of actions to manage identified email messages can be assigned based on policy rules defined by the Customer: • Log and Continue: Email message is logged as identified by the policy and SEG continues processing the email against the remaining policies. • Log and Send: Email message is logged as identified by the policy name and SEG sends the email directly out. No additional policies will be executed. • Return to Sender: The email will be discarded and a notification will be sent to sender of the email with information about what policy triggered the bounce back message. No additional policies are executed. • Discard: The email is deleted. No additional policies are executed. • Encrypt: The email is sent out encrypted and logged against this policy. No additional polices are executed Policy based Encryption The SEG Premium Service provides a policy-based encryption and decryption process. The process is designed to analyze messages leaving the Customer’s network using the policy engine, match an outbound encrypt rule and enable the encryption. Outbound content policies are centrally created using the policy manager. One or more conditions (e.g. contains credit card number, message body contains keywords, email address of sender or recipient matches a domain name, message attachment is of a certain type, etc.) are defined by the Customer, and the policy is associated with the ‘encrypt message’ action. If a message matches one of the policies it is encrypted within the AT&T SEG network and sent to the recipient. End-User Initiated Encryption SEG Premium enables End Users to invoke encrypted email messages from the gateway by simply pressing an “Encrypt” button installed on the mail client. End-User Initiated Encryption is supported through an email client plug-in that provides an “encrypt button”. The plug-in is available for versions of Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Web Access. 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 29 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 Sender Notification SEG Premium provides notification to senders when messages are encrypted at the AT&T SEG network. Senders also receive notifications when message recipients pickup and decrypt messages. Notification messages are customizable. Web-based Delivery The Encrypted Message portal is a web based portal for message pick-up. After an encrypted message is sent, the recipient is prompted through an email notification to collect their message at the Encrypted Message Portal. First time users of the portal are required to create a password protected profile. Once a recipient has created a profile, they collect subsequent messages by clicking the link in the email notification and logging in to Encrypted Message Portal with their email address and password. The Encrypted Message portal and email notifications can be customer branded as an optional service. Direct Delivery Recipients of encrypted email messages have the option of downloading the Encrypted Reader application, which will enable them to receive, and open encrypted messages directly in their existing desktop or webmail email client. For users who have opted to use the reader, encrypted messages arrive in their inbox as an attachment to a regular message. When opening the attachment, the user is prompted for their password before the message is displayed. Mobile Device Support SEG Premium supports mobile devices that can render HTML on a mobile browser. As an example, SEG supports Blackberry devices, Apple iPhone, Windows mobile devices, and more. All encrypted messages being decrypted on the web-based message portal can be read on any traditional mobile browser. The SEG Premium service has the ability to recognize which mobile browser is being used by the recipient to read and decrypt messages and adjust accordingly. In addition, all notification messages delivered to the sender and recipient of encrypted messages can be delivered via SMS (Text messaging) to instant mobile verification. For example, when a recipient has received encrypted messages, SEG Premium can deliver a short text messages to the recipient’s mobile phone with a link for the message pickup portal. Standards Support The SEG Premium Service leverages industry recognized standards such as PKI, X.509, S/MIME, SSL, and TLS for sending electronically signed and encrypted email messages. The solution is interoperable with other PKI based systems. Administrator Reports Included in the SEG Administration Center console is access to a suite of reports providing a view into the statistics and use of the Service. All mail messages processed by the Service are recorded in these statistical reports, measured on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The reports furnished to Customer depend of the Service components and features in use by the Customer. 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 30 of 30 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 3 11/29/12 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 1 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 6.1.7 Service Identifier: Managed Internet Service (MIS) Attachment 4 Three service types are available: • AT&T MIS with AT&T Managed Router and • AT&T MIS with Customer Managed Router • AT&T Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) with Customer Managed Router – Grandfathered, for existing customers only. Use MIS for new orders. Under each AT&T MIS service type, 3 types of port billing services are available: • Flat Rate Port Only, • Hi Cap Flex Port Only, and • Burstable Port Only. For all port types, an access circuit is ordered and billed separate from the port. All new Internet access services will be provisioned with AT&T MIS. AT&T Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) with Customer Managed Router Service is being grandfathered. Existing AT&T DIA Ports may be upgraded subject to bandwidth availability. Ethernet Access is not available for DIA upgrade. The Customer Managed Flat Rate Port pricing for AT&T MIS below applies to DIA ports, as available. Note: Charges apply for On-Site (Managed Router Service), no charge for Tele-Install. MIS Installation Table Port Speed Tele- Install On-Site 56 Kbps - 1.5 Kbps N/C $999.00* NxT1 (3.0 Mbps - 6.0 Mbps) N/C $999.00* Tiered/Full T3 N/C $1000.00* OC-X N/C $10000.00* Ethernet Access N/C $0.00* * - ICB pricing is available. 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 2 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 FLAT RATE INTERNET PORT The Customer Managed Flat Rate Port pricing for AT&T MIS below applies to DIA ports, as available. Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure AT&T MIS @ 56Kbps 5323 N/C $ 72.20 Port AT&T MIS @ 128Kbps 5324 N/C $ 85.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 256Kbps 5325 N/C $ 106.40 Port AT&T MIS @ 384Kbps 5326 N/C $ 127.30 Port AT&T MIS @ 512Kbps 5327 N/C $ 148.20 Port AT&T MIS @ 768Kbps 5328 N/C $ 155.80 Port AT&T MIS @ 1024 Kbps 5700 N/C $ 161.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 1.544 Mbps (T1) 5701 N/C $ 178.60 Port AT&T MIS @ 2Mbps 5329 N/C $ 147.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 3 Mbps 5702 N/C $ 212.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 3 Mbps NxT1 5702 N/C $ 212.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 4Mbps 5330 N/C $ 268.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 4.5Mbps 5331 N/C $ 275.00 Port AT&T MIS @ 5Mbps 5332 N/C $ 281.25 Port AT&T MIS @ 6Mbps 5333 N/C $ 312.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 6Mbps NxT1 5333 N/C $ 312.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 7Mbps 5334 N/C $ 353.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 7.5 Mbps 5382 N/C $ 370.00 Port AT&T MIS @ 8Mbps 5335 N/C $ 391.25 Port AT&T MIS @ 9Mbps 5336 N/C $ 428.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 9Mbps NxT1 5336 N/C $ 428.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 10 Mbps 5703 N/C $ 460.00 Port AT&T MIS @ 10.5 Mbps 5383 N/C $ 478.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 12 Mbps 5384 N/C $ 547.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 15 Mbps 5704 N/C $ 616.25 Port AT&T MIS @ 20 Mbps 5705 N/C $ 772.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 25 Mbps 5706 N/C $ 931.25 Port AT&T MIS @ 30 Mbps 5707 N/C $ 1,087.50 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 3 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure AT&T MIS @ 35 Mbps 5708 N/C $ 1,247.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 40 Mbps 5709 N/C $ 1,403.75 Port AT&T MIS @ 45 Mbps (T3) 5710 N/C $ 1,562.50 Port AT&T MIS @ 60Mbps (OC3) 5338 N/C $ 1,956.25 Port AT&T MIS @ 155 Mbps (OC3) 5712 N/C $ 4,450.00 Port AT&T MIS @ 622 Mbps (OC12) 6528 N/C $12,675.00 Port AT&T MIS @ 2.45 Gbps (OC48) 6837 N/C $49,000.00 Port FLAT RATE INTERNET PORT WITH ROUTER Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 56Kbps 5348 See Above $ 98.80 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 128Kbps 5349 See Above $ 112.10 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 256Kbps 5350 See Above $ 133.00 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 384Kbps 5351 See Above $ 153.90 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 512Kbps 5352 See Above $ 174.80 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 768Kbps 5353 See Above $ 182.40 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 1024 Kbps 5713 See Above $ 188.10 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 4 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 1.544 Mbps (T1) 5714 See Above $ 205.20 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 2Mbps 5354 See Above $ 221.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 3Mbps 5355 See Above $ 286.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 3Mbps NxT1 5355 See Above $ 286.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 4Mbps 5356 See Above $ 342.50 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 4.5Mbps 5357 See Above $ 348.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 5Mbps 5358 See Above $ 355.00 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 6Mbps 5359 See Above $ 386.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 6Mbps NxT1 5359 See Above $ 386.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 7Mbps 5360 See Above $ 573.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 7.5 Mbps 5385 See Above $ 590.00 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 8Mbps 5361 See Above $ 611.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 9Mbps 5362 See Above $ 648.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 9Mbps NxT1 5362 See Above $ 648.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 10Mbps 5363 See Above $ 680.00 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 10.5 Mbps 5386 See Above $ 698.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 12 Mbps 5387 See Above $ 767.50 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 5 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 15Mbps 5364 See Above $ 836.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 20Mbps 5365 See Above $ 992.50 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 25Mbps 5366 See Above $ 1,151.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 30Mbps 5367 See Above $ 1,307.50 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 35Mbps 5368 See Above $ 1,467.50 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 40Mbps 5369 See Above $ 1,623.75 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 45Mbps 5370 See Above $ 1,782.50 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 60Mbps 5374 See Above $ 2,251.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 155 Mbps (OC3) 5716 See Above $ 4,745.00 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 622 Mbps (OC12) 6529 See Above $13,126.25 Port AT&T MIS w/Mgd Router @ 2.45 Gbps (OC48) 6840 See Above $49,763.75 Port HI CAP FLEX T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM (ASYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER MODE) Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 6 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap T3 2 Mbps 7400 N/C $ 236.00 Port 248.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 3 Mbps 7401 N/C $ 340.00 Port 238.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 4 Mbps 7402 N/C $ 430.00 Port 227.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 5 Mbps 7403 N/C $ 450.00 Port 189.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 6 Mbps 7404 N/C $ 500.00 Port 175.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 7 Mbps 7405 N/C $ 566.00 Port 171.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 8 Mbps 7406 N/C $ 626.00 Port 164.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 9 Mbps 7407 N/C $ 686.00 Port 161.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 10 Mbps 7408 N/C $ 736.00 Port 157.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 15 Mbps 7409 N/C $ 986.00 Port 140.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 20 Mbps 7410 N/C $ 1,236.00 Port 133.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 25 Mbps 7411 N/C $ 1,490.00 Port 126.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 30 Mbps 7412 N/C $ 1,740.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 35 Mbps 7413 N/C $ 1,996.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 40 Mbps 7414 N/C $ 2,246.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 45 Mbps 7415 N/C $ 2,500.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM (ASYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER MODE) with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 2 Mbps 7420 See Above $ 354.00 Port 248.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 3 Mbps 7421 See Above $ 458.00 Port 238.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 4 Mbps 7422 See Above $ 548.00 Port 227.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 5 Mbps 7423 See Above $ 568.00 Port 189.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 6 Mbps 7424 See Above $ 618.00 Port 175.00 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 7 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 7 Mbps 7425 See Above $ 918.00 Port 171.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 8 Mbps 7426 See Above $ 978.00 Port 164.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 9 Mbps 7427 See Above $ 1,038.00 Port 161.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 10 Mbps 7428 See Above $ 1,088.00 Port 157.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 15 Mbps 7429 See Above $ 1,338.00 Port 140.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 20 Mbps 7430 See Above $ 1,588.00 Port 133.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 25 Mbps 7431 See Above $ 1,842.00 Port 126.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 30 Mbps 7432 See Above $ 2,092.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 7433 See Above $ 2,348.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 7434 See Above $ 2,598.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap T3 w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 7435 See Above $ 2,852.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX OC3 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 8 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC3 35 Mbps 8050 N/C $ 1,996.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 40 Mbps 8051 N/C $ 2,246.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 45 Mbps 8052 N/C $ 2,500.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 60 Mbps 8053 N/C $ 3,130.00 Port 112.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 70 Mbps 8054 N/C $ 3,550.00 Port 108.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 80 Mbps 8055 N/C $ 3,970.00 Port 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 90 Mbps 8056 N/C $ 4,390.00 Port 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 100 Mbps 8057 N/C $ 4,810.00 Port 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 120 Mbps 8058 N/C $ 5,650.00 Port 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 144 Mbps 8059 N/C $ 6,490.00 Port 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 155 Mbps 8060 N/C $ 7,120.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX OC3 - PRIVATE LINE with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 8070 See Above $ 2,348.00 Port 122.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 8071 See Above $ 2,598.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 8072 See Above $ 2,852.00 Port 119.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 60 Mbps 8073 See Above $ 3,602.00 Port 112.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 8074 See Above $ 4,022.00 Port 108.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 8075 See Above $ 4,442.00 Port 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 8076 See Above $ 4,862.00 Port 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 8077 See Above $ 5,282.00 Port 101.50 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 9 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 8078 See Above $ 6,122.00 Port 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 8079 See Above $ 6,962.00 Port 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 8080 See Above $ 7,592.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX OC12 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC12 70 Mbps 7500 N/C $ 3,550.00 Port $ 108.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 80 Mbps 7501 N/C $ 3,970.00 Port $ 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 90 Mbps 7502 N/C $ 4,390.00 Port $ 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 100 Mbps 7503 N/C $ 4,810.00 Port $ 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 120 Mbps 7504 N/C $ 5,650.00 Port $ 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 144 Mbps 7505 N/C $ 6,490.00 Port $ 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 155 Mbps 7506 N/C $ 7,120.00 Port $ 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 200 Mbps 7507 N/C $ 8,390.00 Port $ 91.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 250 Mbps 7508 N/C $ 9,806.00 Port $ 84.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 300 Mbps 7509 N/C $11,220.00 Port $ 80.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 350 Mbps 7510 N/C $12,640.00 Port $ 77.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 400 Mbps 7511 N/C $14,056.00 Port $ 77.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 450 Mbps 7512 N/C $15,470.00 Port $ 73.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 500 Mbps 7513 N/C $16,886.00 Port $ 73.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 550 Mbps 7514 N/C $18,300.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 600 Mbps 7515 N/C $19,716.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC12 622 Mbps 7516 N/C $20,280.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX OC12 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 10 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 7525 See Above $ 4,022.00 Port $ 108.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 7526 See Above $ 4,442.00 Port $ 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 7527 See Above $ 4,862.00 Port $ 105.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 7528 See Above $ 5,282.00 Port $ 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 7529 See Above $ 6,122.00 Port $ 101.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 7530 See Above $ 6,962.00 Port $ 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 7531 See Above $ 7,592.00 Port $ 98.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 200 Mbps 7532 See Above $ 9,112.00 Port $ 91.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 250 Mbps 7533 See Above $10,528.00 Port $ 84.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 300 Mbps 7534 See Above $11,942.00 Port $ 80.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 350 Mbps 7535 See Above $13,362.00 Port $ 77.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 400 Mbps 7536 See Above $14,778.00 Port $ 77.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 450 Mbps 7537 See Above $16,192.00 Port $ 73.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 500 Mbps 7538 See Above $17,608.00 Port $ 73.50 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 550 Mbps 7539 See Above $19,022.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 600 Mbps 7540 See Above $20,438.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC3 w/Mgd Rtr 622 Mbps 7541 See Above $21,002.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX OC48 - PRIVATE LINE 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 11 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC48 600 Mbps 7450 N/C $19,716.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 622 Mbps 7451 N/C $20,280.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 700 Mbps 7452 N/C $22,546.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 800 Mbps 7453 N/C $25,376.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 1250 Mbps 7454 N/C $40,500.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 1550 Mbps 7455 N/C $50,000.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 1850 Mbps 7456 N/C $59,500.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 2150 Mbps1 7457 N/C $69,000.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 2450 Mbps1 7458 N/C $78,400.00 Port N/A N/A 1Due a technical limitation with the Cisco Gigabit Router cards, actual speed of the service is limited to 1.9 Gbps. Therefore, 1850 Mbps should be the highest “Minimum Bandwidth Commitment” offered to customers at this time. HI CAP FLEX OC48 – PRIVATE LINE – With Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC48 600 Mbps 7470 See Above $20,438.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 622 Mbps 7471 See Above $21,002.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 700 Mbps 7472 See Above $23,268.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 800 Mbps 7473 See Above $26,098.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 12 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS HiCap OC48 1250 Mbps 7474 See Above $41,722.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 1550 Mbps 7475 See Above $51,222.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 1850 Mbps 7476 See Above $60,722.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 2150 Mbps1 7477 See Above $70,222.00 Port $ 70.00 Per Mbps MIS HiCap OC48 2450 Mbps1 7478 See Above $79,622.00 Port N/A N/A 1Due a technical limitation with the Cisco Gigabit Router cards, actual speed of the service is limited to 1.9 Gbps. Therefore, 1850 Mbps should be the highest "Minimum Bandwidth Commitment" offered to customers at this time. HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2 Mbps 8301 $0.00 $165.20 Port $99.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3 Mbps 8302 $0.00 $238.00 Port $95.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4 Mbps 8303 $0.00 $301.00 Port $91.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5 Mbps 8304 $0.00 $315.00 Port $75.60 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6 Mbps 8305 $0.00 $350.00 Port $70.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7 Mbps 8306 $0.00 $396.20 Port $68.60 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 13 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8 Mbps 8307 $0.00 $438.20 Port 65.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9 Mbps 8308 $0.00 $480.20 Port $64.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 10 Mbps 8309 $0.00 $515.20 Port $63.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 15 Mbps 8310 $0.00 $690.20 Port $56.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 20 Mbps 8311 $0.00 $865.20 Port $53.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 25 Mbps 8312 $0.00 $1,043.00 Port $50.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 30 Mbps 8313 $0.00 $1,218.00 Port $49.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 35 Mbps 8314 $0.00 $1,397.20 Port $49.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 40 Mbps 8315 $0.00 $1,235.30 Port $37.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 45 Mbps 8316 $0.00 $1,375.00 Port $37.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 50 Mbps 8382 $0.00 $1,489.40 Port $36.30 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 60 Mbps 8317 $0.00 $1,721.50 Port $35.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 70 Mbps 8318 $0.00 $1,952.50 Port $34.10 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 80 Mbps 8319 $0.00 $2,183.50 Port $33.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 90 Mbps 8320 $0.00 $2,414.50 Port $33.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 100 Mbps 8321 $0.00 $2,645.50 Port $31.90 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 14 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 120 Mbps 8346 $0.00 $3,107.50 Port $31.90 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 144 Mbps 8347 $0.00 $3,569.50 Port $30.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 155 Mbps 8348 $0.00 $3,916.00 Port $30.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 200 Mbps 8349 $0.00 $4,614.50 Port $28.60 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 250 Mbps 8350 $0.00 $5,393.30 Port $26.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 300 Mbps 8351 $0.00 $6,171.00 Port $25.30 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 350 Mbps 8352 $0.00 $6,320.00 Port $22.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 400 Mbps 8353 $0.00 $7,028.00 Port $22.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 450 Mbps 8354 $0.00 $7,735.00 Port $21.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 500 Mbps 8355 $0.00 $8,443.00 Port $21.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 550 Mbps 8356 $0.00 $9,150.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 600 Mbps 8357 $0.00 $9,858.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 622 Mbps 8358 $0.00 $10,140.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 700 Mbps 8359 $0.00 $10,145.70 Port $18.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 800 Mbps 8360 $0.00 $11,419.20 Port $18.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 900 Mbps 8361 $0.00 $12,757.50 Port $18.00 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 15 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 1000 Mbps 8362 $0.00 $14,085.00 Port N/A Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX – 10 Gig ETHERNET PORT ONLY Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 1500 Mbps 8385 $0.00 $13,158.75 Port $14.09 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2000 Mbps 8386 $0.00 $12,880.00 Port $8.77 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 2500 Mbps 8387 $0.00 $13,720.00 Port $6.44 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3000 Mbps 8388 $0.00 $14,400.00 Port $5.62 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 3500 Mbps 8389 $0.00 $16,747.50 Port $4.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4000 Mbps 8390 $0.00 $19,080.00 Port $4.79 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 4500 Mbps 8391 $0.00 $21,397.50 Port $4.77 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5000 Mbps 8392 $0.00 $23,400.00 Port $4.76 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 5500 Mbps 8393 $0.00 $25,987.50 Port $4.68 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6000 Mbps 8394 $0.00 $28,260.00 Port $4.73 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 6500 Mbps 8395 $0.00 $30,517.50 Port $4.71 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 16 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7000 Mbps 8396 $0.00 $32,340.00 Port $4.70 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 7500 Mbps 8397 $0.00 $34,987.50 Port $4.62 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8000 Mbps 8398 $0.00 $37,200.00 Port $4.67 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 8500 Mbps 8399 $0.00 $39,397.50 Port $4.65 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9000 Mbps 8400 $0.00 $41,040.00 Port $4.64 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 9500 Mbps 8401 $0.00 $43,177.50 Port $4.56 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet 10000 Mbps 8402 $0.00 $45,300.00 Port $4.55 Per Mbps HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY – with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure On-Site Install Charges apply - see MIS Install Table above. MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 2 Mbps 8323 $0.00 $247.80 Port $99.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 3 Mbps 8324 $0.00 $320.60 Port $95.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 4 Mbps 8325 $0.00 $383.60 Port $91.00 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 17 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 5 Mbps 8326 $0.00 $397.60 Port $75.60 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 6 Mbps 8327 $0.00 $432.60 Port $70.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 7 Mbps 8328 $0.00 $642.60 Port $68.60 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 8 Mbps 8329 $0.00 $684.60 Port $65.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 9 Mbps 8330 $0.00 $726.60 Port $64.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 10 Mbps 8331 $0.00 $761.60 Port $63.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 15 Mbps 8332 $0.00 $936.60 Port $56.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 20 Mbps 8333 $0.00 $1,111.60 Port $53.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 25 Mbps 8334 $0.00 $1,289.40 Port $50.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 30 Mbps 8335 $0.00 $1,464.40 Port $49.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 35 Mbps 8336 $0.00 $1,643.60 Port $49.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 40 Mbps 8337 $0.00 $1,428.90 Port $37.40 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 18 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 45 Mbps 8338 $0.00 $1,568.60 Port $37.40 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 50 Mbps 8383 $0.00 $1,719.30 Port $36.30 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 60 Mbps 8339 $0.00 $1,981.10 Port $35.20 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 70 Mbps 8340 $0.00 $2,212.10 Port $34.10 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 80 Mbps 8341 $0.00 $2,443.10 Port $33.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 90 Mbps 8342 $0.00 $2,674.10 Port $33.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 100 Mbps 8343 $0.00 $2,905.10 Port $31.90 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 120 Mbps 8365 $0.00 $3,367.10 Port $31.90 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 144 Mbps 8366 $0.00 $3,829.10 Port $30.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 155 Mbps 8367 $0.00 $4,175.60 Port $30.80 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 200 Mbps 8368 $0.00 $5,011.60 Port $28.60 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 250 Mbps 8369 $0.00 $5,790.40 Port $26.40 Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 19 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Incremental Usage Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 300 Mbps 8370 $0.00 $6,568.10 Port $25.30 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 350 Mbps 8371 $0.00 $6,681.00 Port $22.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 400 Mbps 8372 $0.00 $7,389.00 Port $22.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 450 Mbps 8373 $0.00 $8,096.00 Port $21.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 500 Mbps 8374 $0.00 $8,804.00 Port $21.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 550 Mbps 8375 $0.00 $9,511.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 600 Mbps 8376 $0.00 $10,219.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 622 Mbps 8377 $0.00 $10,501.00 Port $20.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 700 Mbps 8378 $0.00 $10,470.60 Port $18.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 800 Mbps 8379 $0.00 $11,744.10 Port $18.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 900 Mbps 8380 $0.00 $13,307.40 Port $18.00 Per Mbps MIS Minimum Bandwidth Commitment Ethernet w/Mgd Rtr 1000 Mbps 8381 $0.00 $14,634.90 Port N/A Per Mbps 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 20 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 ETHERNET ACCESS to LONG DISTANCE POP Used with HI CAP FLEX ETHERNET PORT ONLY service. Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure 100-Base-TX 2 Mbps Ethernet LNET2 $0.00 $450.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 4 Mbps Ethernet LNET4 $0.00 $500.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 5 Mbps Ethernet LNET5 $0.00 $540.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 8 Mbps Ethernet LNET8 $0.00 $590.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 10 Mbps Ethernet LNET10 $0.00 $720.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 20 Mbps Ethernet LNET20 $0.00 $860.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 50 Mbps Ethernet LNET50 $0.00 $975.00 Per circuit 100-Base-TX 100 Mbps Ethernet LNET100 $0.00 $1,125.00 Per circuit 1000-Base-SX/LX 150 Mbps Ethernet LNET150 $0.00 $1,400.00 Per circuit 1000-Base-SX/LX 250 Mbps Ethernet LNET250 $0.00 $1,725.00 Per circuit 1000-Base-SX/LX 500 Mbps Ethernet LNET500 $0.00 $2,200.00 Per circuit 1000-Base-SX/LX 600 Mbps Ethernet LNET600 $0.00 $2,544.90 Per circuit 1000-Base-SX/LX 1000 Mbps Ethernet LNET1G $0.00 $3,200.00 Per circuit 10G-Base-LSR 10000 Mbps Ethernet LNET10G $0.00 $4,700.00 Per circuit 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 21 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 BURSTABLE T1 - PRIVATE LINE, FRAME RELAY Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable T1 Up to 128 Kbps 7301 N/C $ 148.50 Port MIS Burstable T1 128.01 to 256 Kbps N/C $ 187.00 Port MIS Burstable T1 256.01 to 384 Kbps N/C $ 222.75 Port MIS Burstable T1 384.01 to 512 Kbps N/C $ 258.50 Port MIS Burstable T1 512.01 to full T1 N/C $ 310.75 Port BURSTABLE T1 - PRIVATE LINE, FRAME RELAY - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr Up to 128 Kbps 7302 See Above $ 187.00 Port MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 128.01 to 256 Kbps See Above $ 225.50 Port MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 256.01 to 384 Kbps See Above $ 261.25 Port MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 384.01 to 512 Kbps See Above $ 297.00 Port MIS Burstable T1 w/Mgd Rtr 512.01 to full T1 See Above $ 349.25 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 22 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 BURSTABLE T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable T3 Up to 6 Mbps 7303 N/C $ 606.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 6.01 to 7.5 Mbps N/C $ 716.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 7.51 to 9.0 Mbps N/C $ 826.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 9.01 to 10.5 Mbps N/C $ 916.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 10.51 to 12.0 Mbps N/C $ 1,006.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 12.01 to 13.5 Mbps N/C $ 1,096.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 13.51 to 15.0 Mbps N/C $ 1,186.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 15.01 to 16.5 Mbps N/C $ 1,260.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 16.51 to 18.0 Mbps N/C $ 1,336.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 18.01 to 19.5 Mbps N/C $ 1,410.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 19.51 to 21.0 Mbps N/C $ 1,486.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 21.01 to 45.0 Mbps N/C $ 3,006.00 Port BURSTABLE T3 - PRIVATE LINE, ATM - with Managed Router 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 23 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router Up to 6 Mbps 7304 See Above $ 724.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 6.01 to 7.5 Mbps See Above $ 1,068.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 7.51 to 9.0 Mbps See Above $ 1,178.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 9.01 to 10.5 Mbps See Above $ 1,268.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 10.51 to 12.0 Mbps See Above $ 1,358.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 12.01 to 13.5 Mbps See Above $ 1,448.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 13.51 to 15.0 Mbps See Above $ 1,538.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 15.01 to 16.5 Mbps See Above $ 1,612.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 16.51 to 18.0 Mbps See Above $ 1,688.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 18.01 to 19.5 Mbps See Above $ 1,762.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 19.51 to 21.0 Mbps See Above $ 1,838.00 Port MIS Burstable T3 w/Mgd Router 21.01 to 45.0 Mbps See Above $ 3,358.00 Port BURSTABLE OC3 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC3 Up to 35 Mbps 7305 N/C $ 2,396.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 24 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC3 35.01 to 45 Mbps N/C $ 3,006.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 45.01 to 55 Mbps N/C $ 3,506.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 55.01 to 65 Mbps N/C $ 4,010.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 65.01 to 75 Mbps N/C $ 4,516.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 75.01 to 85 Mbps N/C $ 5,020.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 85.01 to 100 Mbps N/C $ 5,776.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 100.01 to 125 Mbps N/C $ 7,036.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 125.01 to 155 Mbps N/C $ 8,546.00 Port BURSTABLE OC3 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router Up to 35 Mbps 7306 See Above $ 2,748.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 35.01 to 45 Mbps See Above $ 3,358.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 45.01 to 55 Mbps See Above $ 3,978.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 55.01 to 65 Mbps See Above $ 4,482.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 65.01 to 75 Mbps See Above $ 4,988.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 25 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 75.01 to 85 Mbps See Above $ 5,492.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 85.01 to 100 Mbps See Above $ 6,248.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 100.01 to 125 Mbps See Above $ 7,508.00 Port MIS Burstable OC3 w/Mgd Router 125.01 to 155 Mbps See Above $ 9,018.00 Port BURSTABLE OC-12- PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC12 Up to 75 Mbps 7307 N/C $ 4,516.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 75.01 to 150 Mbps N/C $ 7,500.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 150.01 to 225 Mbps N/C $10,486.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 225.01 to 300 Mbps N/C $13,466.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 300.01 to 375 Mbps N/C $16,016.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 375.01 to 450 Mbps N/C $18,566.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 26 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 MIS Burstable OC12 450.01 to 525 Mbps N/C $21,086.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 525.01 to 622 Mbps N/C $24,340.00 Port BURSTABLE OC-12- PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router Up to 75 Mbps 7308 See Above $ 4,988.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 75.01 to 150 Mbps See Above $ 7,972.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 150.01 to 225 Mbps See Above $10,958.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 225.01 to 300 Mbps See Above $14,188.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 300.01 to 375 Mbps See Above $16,738.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 375.01 to 450 Mbps See Above $19,288.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 450.01 to 525 Mbps See Above $21,808.00 Port MIS Burstable OC12 w/Mgd Router 525.01 to 622 Mbps See Above $25,062.00 Port BURSTABLE OC-48 - PRIVATE LINE Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC48 Up to 1250 Mbps 7309 N/C $48,600.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 27 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS Burstable OC48 1251 to 1350 Mbps N/C $52,390.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1351 to 1450 Mbps N/C $56,180.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1451 to 1550 Mbps N/C $59,970.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1551 to 1650 Mbps N/C $63,760.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1651 to 1750 Mbps N/C $67,550.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1751 to 1850 Mbps N/C $71,340.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1851 to 1950 Mbps* N/C $75,130.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 1951 to 2050 Mbps* N/C $78,920.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 2051 to 2150 Mbps* N/C $82,710.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 2151 to 2250 Mbps* N/C $86,500.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 2251 to 2350 Mbps* N/C $90,290.00 Port MIS Burstable OC48 2351 to 2450 Mbps* N/C $94,080.00 Port BURSTABLE OC-48 - PRIVATE LINE - with Managed Router Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 28 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 Up to 1250 Mbps 7310 See Above $49,822.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1251 to 1350 Mbps See Above $53,612.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1351 to 1450 Mbps See Above $57,402.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1451 to 1550 Mbps See Above $61,192.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1551 to 1650 Mbps See Above $64,982.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1651 to 1750 Mbps See Above $68,772.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1751 to 1850 Mbps See Above $72,562.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1851 to 1950 Mbps* See Above $76,352.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 1951 to 2050 Mbps* See Above $80,142.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2051 to 2150 Mbps* See Above $83,932.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2151 to 2250 Mbps* See Above $87,722.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 29 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2251 to 2350 Mbps* See Above $91,512.00 Port MIS w/Mgd Router Burstable OC48 2351 to 2450 Mbps* See Above $95,302.00 Port Optional Features – Class of Service Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Class of Service 1.5 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOST1 N/C $45.00 Port Class of Service MLPPP NxT1 (3 to 12 Mbps) FCOSML N/C $45.00 Port Class of Service 10 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS10 N/C $165.00 Port Class of Service 15 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS15 N/C $215.00 Port Class of Service 20 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS20 N/C $265.00 Port Class of Service 25 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS25 N/C $315.00 Port Class of Service 30 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS30 N/C $365.00 Port Class of Service 35 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS35 N/C $420.00 Port Class of Service 40 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS40 N/C $470.00 Port Class of Service 45 Mbps Flat Rate FRCOS45 N/C $550.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 30 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Class of Service Burstable T1 BCOST1 N/C $45.00 Port Class of Service Burstable T3 BCOST3 N/C $550.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex .05-1.5Mbps* *Only Available with Ethernet Access FCOS05 N/C $45.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2 Mbps FCOS2 N/C $57.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3 Mbps FCOS3 N/C $72.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4 Mbps FCOS4 N/C $87.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5 Mbps FCOS5 N/C $102.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6 Mbps FCOS6 N/C $115.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7 Mbps FCOS7 N/C $128.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8 Mbps FCOS8 N/C $141.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9 Mbps FCOS9 N/C $153.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 10 Mbps FCOS10 N/C $165.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 15 Mbps FCOS15 N/C $215.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 20 Mbps FCOS20 N/C $265.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 25 Mbps FCOS25 N/C $315.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 30 Mbps FCOS30 N/C $365.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 31 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 35 Mbps FCOS35 N/C $420.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 40 Mbps FCOS40 N/C $470.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 45 Mbps FCOS45 N/C $550.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex OC3 FCOS155 N/C $550.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 45.1 – 155 Mbps FCOS250 N/C $1,000.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 200 – 250 Mbps FCOS350 N/C $1,080.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 300 – 350 Mbps FCOS600 N/C $1,160.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 400 – 600 Mbps FCOS622 N/C $1,240.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 622 Mbps FCOS1G N/C $1,400.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 700 – 1000 Mbps FCOST1 N/C $1,560.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 1500 Mbps FCOS15G N/C $1,580.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2000 Mbps FCOS2G N/C $1,600.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 2500 Mbps FCOS25G N/C $1,620.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3000 Mbps FCOS3G N/C $1,640.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 3500 Mbps FCOS35G N/C $1,660.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4000 Mbps FCOS4G N/C $1,680.00 Port 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 32 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Description Identifier Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 4500 Mbps FCOS45G N/C $1,700.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5000 Mbps FCOS5G N/C $1,720.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 5500 Mbps FCOS55G N/C $1,740.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6000 Mbps FCOS6G N/C $1,760.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 6500 Mbps FCOS65G N/C $1,780.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7000 Mbps FCOS7G N/C $1,800.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 7500 Mbps FCOS75G N/C $1,820.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8000 Mbps FCOS8G N/C $1,840.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 8500 Mbps FCOS85G N/C $1,860.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9000 Mbps FCOS9G N/C $1,880.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 9500 Mbps FCOS95G N/C $1,900.00 Port Class of Service Hi Cap Flex 10000 Mbps FCOS10G N/C $1,920.00 Port Optional Features – AT&T Secure E-Mail Gateway (SEG) Feature Name Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure SEG Advanced • Less than 50 $ 150.00 (Set Up Fee) $ 6.00 Per Seat • 50 – 74 None $ 1.58 Per Seat 6.1.7 – Managed Internet Service 33 of 33 Revised: MSA 1 - Amendment No. 16 Attachment 4 11/29/12 Feature Name Non-Recurring Charge (NRC) Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) Unit of Measure • 75 – 99 None $ 1.40 Per Seat • 100 – 500 None $ 1.25 Per Seat • 501 – 1000 None $ 1.05 Per Seat • 1001 – and above None $ 1.00 Per Seat SEG Premium • Less than 50 None $ 9.00 Per Seat • 50 – 74 None $ 3.06 Per Seat • 75 – 99 None $ 2.77 Per Seat • 100 – 500 None $ 2.66 Per Seat • 501 – 1000 None $ 2.49 Per Seat • 1001 – 2500 None $ 2.39 Per Seat • 2501 – and above None $ 2.29 Per Seat Archiving – 1 year • Less than 50 $ 1,800.00 (Set Up Fee) $ 4.17 Per Seat • 50 – 99 None $ 2.03 Per Seat • 100 – 750 None $ 1.70 Per Seat Archiving – 7 years • Less than 50 $ 1,800.00 (Set Up Fee) $ 4.17 Per Seat • 50 – 99 None $ 3.34 Per Seat • 100 – 750 None $ 2.80 Per Seat CALNET 2 – MSA 1 SLA MSA 1 SLA Revised: MSA 1 – Amendment No. 16 11/29/12 Volume 1 - Page 6-807 6.1.11.2.14 Time to Repair (TTR) – Minor (M) Services Time to Repair (TTR)-Minor Analog Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Carrier (DS0,DS1,DS3) Frame Relay Managed Frame Relay ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI) SONET (Ring and Point-to- Point) AVPN AVPN Managed Service Bundles OPT-E-MAN AT&T Switched Ethernet (ASE) OPT-E-MAN Managed Service Bundles OPT-E-WAN Managed Service Bundles CSME EPLS-WAN FibreMAN MON Ring Ethernet to LD POP Switched 56 Definition A Minor Fault shall be defined as a trouble ticket opened with the Contractor’s helpdesk on the loss of any circuit or service to a single End-User at a site. Measurement Process This Service Level Agreement (SLA) applies to the services listed in the adjacent column. This SLA is based on a trouble ticket outage durations. The circuit or service is unusable during the time the trouble ticket is recorded as open in the Contractors trouble ticket system minus stop clock conditions. This SLA is applied per occurrence. Trouble reporting shall be 7X24. Any circuits or service reported by End-User/Customer as not having been restored shall have the outage time adjusted to the actual restoration time. Objectives Analog=less than 5 hours DS0=less than 5 hours DS1=less than 4 hours DS3=less than 2 hours PRI ISDN=less than 5 hours 10/100 Mbps = less than 4 hours 1000 Mbps (1 Gbps) = less than 4 hours 10 Gbps = less than 4 hours OC-X = less than 3 hours LAN-PHY (10.3 Gbps) = less than 4 hours WAN-PHY (9.95 Gbps) = less than 4 hours Immediate Rights and Remedies Failing to meet the SLA Objective shall result in a 15 percent rebate of the TMRC per occurrence. End-User Escalation Process DTS/ONS Escalation Process Monthly Rights and Remedies N/A CALNET 2 – MSA 1 SLA MSA 1 SLA Revised: MSA 1 – Amendment No. 16 11/29/12 Volume 1 - Page 6-810E 6.1.11.2.14.e Time to Repair (TTR) – Opt-E-WAN Services Time to Repair (TTR) – OPT-E-WAN OPT-E-WAN Definition A Minor Fault shall be defined as a trouble ticket opened with the Contractor’s helpdesk on the loss of any circuit or service to a single End-User at a site. Measurement Process This Service Level Agreement (SLA) applies to the services listed in the adjacent column. This SLA is based on a trouble ticket outage durations. The circuit or service is unusable during the time the trouble ticket is recorded as open in the Contractors trouble ticket system minus stop clock conditions. This SLA is applied per occurrence. Trouble reporting shall be 7X24. Any circuits or service reported by End-User/Customer as not having been restored shall have the outage time adjusted to the actual restoration time. Objective: < 1 Minute Immediate Rights and Remedies: Failing to meet the SLA objective shall result in a rebate of the TMRC based on the credit schedule below: Outage Time No Resiliency 1 minute <= 2 hours 3.3% 2 hours <= 4 hours 10% 4 hours <= 8 hours 25% 8 hours <= 12 hours 50% > 12 hours 100% Monthly Rights and Remedies N/A City of Palo Alto (ID # 4366) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Genuent Contract Renewal Title: Approval of Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with Genuent USA, LLC for IT Staff Augmentation in an Amount to Not Exceed $350,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve, and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute, the attached Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with Genuent USA, LLC. (Contract number: C13146017) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $350,000 and to extend the term of the contract from 11/5/13 – 11/4/14. Staff is requesting the Council’s ratification of Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement with Genuent USA, LLC. Background In response to RFP #146017, issued in August of 2012, staff report #3046 recommended that the City Council approve the award of three separate On-Call Contracts with Genuent USA, LLC; 22nd Century Technologies, Inc.; and IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated to provide temporary Information Technology staffing, with the aggregate cost of the three contracts not to exceed $300,000 per year. Staff report #3046 was approved by Council on 12/3/2012 for a one-year contract with up to four additional one-year extension terms. Staff is requesting the ratification of Amendment No. One, as staff had secured the City Manager’s, not the Council’s, approval of the contract amendment. An express delegation of signatory authority to the City Manager City of Palo Alto Page 2 or designee to extend the annual contract terms and approve any increase in compensation in funds already appropriated for these contracts was not requested in the original staff report. After working with the three companies, it was determined that two of the selected vendors, IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated and 22nd Century Technologies, possessed expertise that the City could not use to provide the desired staff support services. Amendment No. One was negotiated in July 2013 to add an additional $150,000 to the original contract compensation amount of $100,000 payable to Genuent. This brought the total Not to Exceed amount for Genuent for Year-One to $250,000. Discussion IT recommends renewing the contract with Genuent USA, LLC for another year (11/5/13 – 11/4/14); however, the other two vendors contracts will not be renewed. IT requests the Council approve the first extension term expenditure of, and delegate to the City Manager or designee the authority to sign Amendment No. Two with Genuent USA, LLC for, $100,000 for temporary Information Technology staffing needs through November 4, 2014. Genuent has helped fill gaps for project manager and network administrator roles for IT. Some of the projects that have been managed by a Genuent contractor are the upgrade to the existing Class System for CSD, the upgrade of the Children’s Ticketing application to the Cloud for CSD and the Enterprise Asset Management System Assessment (EAMS) for Public Works. Genuent services are still needed to augment project management roles in IT. Some of the projects the Genuent contractor will be working on will be managing the Zoll Fire RMS Hosted Solution project and the Fire Vehicle Technology Refresh project for the Fire Department. Resource Impact The costs for this contract were included in the FY 2014 Budget for the Technology Fund. No additional funding is needed for this contract amendment. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: CMR # 3046 - Multiple Contract Award For Temporary IT Staffing Services (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Amendment One - Genuent (PDF) Amendment 2 Genuent Contract C13146017 (PDF) EXHIBIT B Amendment 2 Genuent Contract (DOCX) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3046) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/3/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Multiple Contract Award For Temporary IT Staffing Services Title: Request Council Approval of Contracts with Genuent USA, LLC, 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., and IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated For Temporary IT Staffing Services From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve the award of On-Call Contracts with Genuent USA, LLC, 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., and IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated for the provision of temporary Information Technology staffing needs. Executive Summary Periodically the City of Palo Alto’s Information Technology (IT) Department has a need to fill various skill sets to ensure that there are no laps of services for our customers. Because of this periodic need and varied skill sets require the IT Department would like to award of multiple vendors on an on-call basis to fully cover its needs. The aggregate cost of the three contracts will not to exceed $300,000.00 per year. Each contract will be for a one-year term with the option for four one-year term extensions based on need and funding. Background In the past when the IT Department needed a specific skill set, that they did not have on hand, they would reach out to the IT retiree pool to fill these skill sets. Examples of a couple of these skill sets are Unix Administrator, or GIS Manager. The City is no longer allowed to reach out to its retired employees to fill temporary needs; due to recent changes in California law. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion The IT Department has a need to fill various skill sets on a temporary basis. These temporary assignments may be for a few days or for several months depending on the need. Examples of these temporary needs could be bringing on a SharePoint Administrator for a two month period to upgrade the City’s SharePoint system. Bringing on a Microsoft Exchange Administrator to fill in for when staff goes on vacation or is out on extended sick leave. When the need for temporary services arises, the IT Department must quickly fill these positions in order to ensure that continued excellent service to City customers is provided. The IT Department has proposed several different vendors for awards of contract, as there was not a single vendor which could provide all of the services that the IT Department requires. Genuent USA, LLC, 22nd Century Technologies Inc., and IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated have been selected for awards of contract as the City’s providers of Temporary Staffing needs for the IT Department. Summary of City Bid Process ITD Temporary Staffing Proposed Length of Project 60 months Number of Solicitations Emailed 18 Total Days to Respond 14 Pre-Respond Meeting 1 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Respond Meeting 10 Number of Responses Received: 15 Response Price Range From a low of $25.00 per hour to a high of $185.00 per hour. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Staff has reviewed all respondents submitted and recommends that Genuent USA, LLC, 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., and IntelliBridge Partners Incorporated should be accepted; as they are the most qualify of the respondents. Temporary positions will not receive pension or healthcare benefits; thus saving the City in overall employment costs. Resource Impact The funds for the payment of the contracts’ costs will come from the Techology Fund and are included in the FY 2013 budget. No additional funding is needed. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Scope of Services (DOCX) Attachment B: Evaluation Matrix (XLSX) Attachement C: RFP (DOC) PR Numbers Associtated with this CMR (TXT) C13148027 IntelliBridge (PDF) C13146017 Genuent (PDF) C13148026 22nd Century (PDF) RFP146017 SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Palo Alto is in the process of selecting varioussearching for vendors to supply, on an on call basis, IT support for the its Information Technology Department. Because the City has such a varied IT environment the City will award multiple contracts on a time and material basis. This support would be in line with, but not limited to the following Job Descriptions: Manager Information Technology o Distinguishing Characteristics Manages a staff of professional, technical and /or clerical employees, works closely with other Information Technology resources as well as other City departments to coordinate client support and develop and monitor standards, service level agreements and support procedures. Through subordinates, the incumbent is responsible for managing and maintaining the City's Technology staff and resources. o Essential Duties Supervises technical, clerical, and lead staff to include: prioritizing and assigning work; conducting performance evaluations; ensuring staff is trained; and making hiring, termination and disciplinary decisions Directs, manages, and coordinates customer support and client relations within the City. Develops, implements, and manages citywide Service Level Agreements (SLAs), which involves facilitating discussions with City management regarding current and anticipated service requirements and alternative approaches. Reviews departmental requests for technology, and makes recommendations as appropriate or alternative system options. Prepares and develops budgets; monitors and approves expenditures in accordance with policies and principles of sound fiscal management. Develops and maintains analytical tools for audit and control of programs. Establishes written policies and procedures for Information Technology acquisition and utilization. Oversees the daily operational activities of technology systems. Establishes citywide standards for Information Technology. Evaluates technology and makes recommendations to ensure compatibility and effectiveness. Provides technical assistance to City departments. Manages Information Technology customer support functions. Plans and evaluates the work of professional, technical and other support staff. Supervises the development of staff to maximize improvement of skills and to provide for cross training. Performs related duties and responsibilities as required Senior Technologist o Distinguishing Characteristics This classification is at the expert professional level. Incumbents reconfigure City applications to follow designated business processes. Performs professional level project and program management and design; preparing reports and presentations for review, manages City enterprise infrastructure, systems/network, and applications; assessment of City needs for business process and technology solutions. Must have the ability to create RFPs, CMRs, written and oral reports and present to executive staff and council. Creates reports and presentations for public meetings, liaisons with other departments, external agencies, vendors and the public. Creates task assignments for staff and may supervise personnel, assess operational goals and objectives related to one or more departmental functions. o Essential Duties Provides project management leadership for specific automated systems projects, which includes: collecting and analyzing business requirements; proposing solutions and alternatives; defining application development scopes of work and tasks; project budget creation and tracking, assessing user needs; identifying appropriate tools to meet user needs; interviewing internal customers; preparing bid specifications; evaluating bids; coordinating activities with external vendors and internal customers; and/or, performing other related activities Evaluates, designs, programs, implements, tests, tunes, and maintains Information Technology infrastructure, websites, GIS applications, SAP applications, and other Enterprise software, as well as other department specific software applications, back-end and front-end servers, hardware/network, database creation/administration, telecommunication systems, and/or other related items, day-to-day systems administration including data storage and system back-ups Identifies City needs, organizes project, and implements all aspects of the City's geographic information system (GIS). Oversees GIS application development, contract development, or software acquisition. Provides consulting assistance and services to application users; suggests, designs, tests, implements, troubleshoots, and evaluates technology and business process efficiencies and solutions Provides advanced end-user support, including researching user complaints, researching issues, answering technical questions, and/or assisting with application revisions or problems Maintains a variety of records and/or documentation for assigned area of responsibility. Operates and administers Information Technology or telecommunications management tools Develops, prepares, and facilitates end-user training Develops a variety of applications, procedures, reports, scripts, and/or interfaces Researches and evaluates hardware and software; recommends and justifies purchase suggestions; works with vendors on the installation, operation, and maintenance of medium to large scale hardware and software products running on various computer systems Participates in a variety of meetings, committees, and/or other related groups in order to receive and convey information regarding needs assessment, fulfillment and usability Negotiates services and software contracts with vendors and consultants; manages vendor and contractor relationships Oversees the monitoring and maintenance of applicable hardware, software, telephone, and/or other related inventory items Performs other duties of a similar nature or level Technologist o Distinguishing Characteristics The Technologist is responsible for systems analysis, programming and design in the solution of City data processing issues; maintains close coordination between the Administrative Services Department and other departments to ensure integration of all systems with City-wide MIS functions. Acts as a resource to departments in the planning, development, and control of data systems o Essential Duties Formulates programming changes in response to departments' needs. Initiates and documents code changes, prepares program descriptions and documentation, prepares operation instructions. Tests and debugs programs as necessary. Submits program changes to outside vendors for use in source programs. Provides project management for specific automated systems projects. Assists in identification of systems software bugs or modification needs. Formulates proper resolution request to system representatives; monitors program problems resolution. Identifies areas where change, use, or increased use of automated systems would provide increased speed, accuracy or efficiency in City operations. Works with other department representatives to prioritize City-wide requests for new developments or enhancements. Provides input to management regarding long-range automation plans. Recommends policies for the use of automated systems. Oversees testing of new systems and identifies discrepancies in information processing. Develops or reviews hardware and software specifications for new automated systems and identifies impacts on existing or other planned systems; delivers time and cost estimates of new systems to assist in preparing project budgets. Maintains close coordination between the Administrative Services Department and other departments to ensure integration of all systems with City-wide MIS functions. Provides technical expertise to department staff. Provides City-wide user training and support for new and existing automated systems. Identifies City needs, organizes project, and implements all aspects of the City's geographic information system (GIS). Oversees GIS application development, contract development, or software acquisition. Provides network design, analysis and recommendation of hardware and software components with consideration for the application software, installation of hardware and software, and implementation. Is responsible for network operating system recommendations, implementation and support. Provides network support, monitor of traffic, performance tuning, segmentation techniques including network management hardware and software, routine network management and diagnostic equipment. Understands network hardware including network interface cards, cabling and wire categories, communications hub, routers, bridges and gateways. Resolves complex network related problems involving computer hardware, software and application systems. When assigned to System Administration: Administers the server hardware, including peripherals and operating and application software. Is responsible for performance and availability of the servers and the associated maintenance and support that ensures these functions. Acquires hardware and software required to maintain satisfactory performance and availability. Tests, corrects and otherwise makes programs and systems operational, interacting with operators, programmers, clerks and department personnel. Acts as systems software specialist in revising, updating and maintaining vendor support software. Schedules production workload, assists in operation budgets preparation and administers aspects of operation development and implementation. Formulates new or revises operating systems software; peripheral devices and their software drivers; prepares flow chart of procedures and block diagrams; codes programs into computer language; prepares operation instructions, programs descriptions and documentation; develops clerical procedures and output formats. Consults with department representatives on objectives, requirements and effectiveness of proposed and existing computer systems. Trains computer operators, programmers, and personal computer technicians. o For Public Safety Position: Identify automation requirements of the City's Police and Fire Departments. Oversee application development, contract development, vendor management and/or software acquisition o Related Functions: Acts as liaison between City departments and software vendors to develop, enhance, and improve automated systems. Aids in acquiring new systems, software, and computers for use in conjunction with automated systems. Reports to management on system projects, future plans, usage, limitations, performance, security, and related issues. Performs related duties and responsibilities as required Desktop Technician o Distinguishing Characteristics Under general supervision, maintains, repairs, and installs personal computer (PC) hardware and software, peripherals, telecommunications and telephone equipment; works on projects assigned by the Manager, Communications and PC's supporting the implementation of new computer hardware and software systems and technologies; works with System Analysts and related Information Technology staff to resolve connectivity problems, and performs a combination of duties in support of various utilities computer-based systems and related equipment including administration, operation, and maintenance of data acquisition systems, computer systems and data communications systems o Essential Duties Plans, organizes and performs hardware and software system configuration and maintenance on personal computers throughout the City. Receives telecommunications, networking and personal computer end user requests for repairs and resolutions of problems, and performs moves and changes (MACS) in the telephone system as needed. Performs repairs, maintenance, and installation of personal computer hardware and software, and of telephone sets and wiring. Resolves connectivity problems such as direct wire, modem and LAN between PCs and servers. Works on special duties or projects assigned by the Manager such as hardware, software and network installations and configurations. Performs PBX system software changes. Trouble shoots network connections. Coordinates with telephone company representatives and vendors regarding system changes and corrections of system problems, system resources and usage, system updates and enhancements with end-users and other support groups. Administers and maintains systems network, data communications equipment and system operational readiness o Related Functions: Assists in training staff on system use Develops user guides and procedures Contacts outside vendors to obtain documentation, information or support Keeps current on computer topics Perform related duties and responsibilities as required The City intends to award multiple contracts for these services. Billing will be based on This will be a time and materials. Pcontract; please include your agency’s expertise and billable rate for each job description listed above. Also include any previous experience you have had with the City or with government agencies similar to the City of Palo Alto. File Number: RFP146017 RFP TITLE Information Technology Department Staffing Services Genuent 22ndCentury Technologies, Inc. IntelliBridge Partners Deltamine ClarusTec Makro Technology Service Partners, Inc. Sierra Infosys.Inc.Romack Computerland Dimension Consulting, Inc. InterBase Corporation Domain Experts Silicon Valley Group, Inc.Greythorn #2 #3 #5 #13 #12 #7 #11 #8 #15 #6 #9 #1 #4 #14 #10 Quality and Completeness of Proposal. *Matches scope of work 10 9.00 9.75 9.00 8.25 8.75 8.00 7.25 4.75 8.50 7.00 7.25 7.75 7.00 8.00 7.00 Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, or services to be provided 10 9.75 9.00 9.25 9.50 9.25 6.75 6.75 6.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.75 7.00 7.00 Quality of the estimates by which projected savings are developed 5 3.00 3.25 3.25 3.00 3.25 5.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Proposer’s experience, including the experience of staff 5 5.00 5.00 4.50 5.00 3.00 4.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 5.00 1.75 3.75 5.00 5.00 3.00 Cost to the City 20 19.25 19.75 15.50 15.25 19.25 20.00 20.00 17.00 13.33 15.00 16.25 17.75 13.00 0.00 0.00 Proposer’s financial stability 5 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 3.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 Proposer’s ability to perform work 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 3.25 3.00 3.00 1.75 4.50 3.25 2.50 1.00 1.00 4.67 3.00 Proposer’s ability to provide future records, reports, data, service 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.25 3.75 3.00 3.00 4.50 3.50 3.00 2.50 1.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.75 3.50 3.00 2.75 4.75 4.75 3.00 2.75 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 Risk Assessment 5 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 1.75 1.00 1.25 4.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 OVERALL RATING 75 54.50 54.50 50.25 49.75 46.00 43.75 40.50 42.25 38.75 38.25 38.50 34.00 34.75 41.67 40.00 RANKING 1.25 1.50 3.50 4.75 5.25 5.75 7.75 8.25 8.25 10.00 10.25 11.25 12.25 14.00 14.75 Date: 09/17/2012 15 proposals received PM: KB Paige CRITERIA Points DEPARTMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NUMBER 146017 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TEMPORARY STAFFING SERVICES Pre-Proposal Meeting: 9:00 A.M. PST Thursday, August 2, 2012 RFP Submittal Deadline: 3:00 P.M. PST Tuesday, August 14, 2012 Contract Administrator: Adrian Brown Adrian.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2271 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 146017 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TITLE: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TEMPORARY STAFFING SERVICES 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STAFFING SERVICES. The required services and performance conditions are described in the Scope of Work (or Services). This set of services will be awarded to more than one firm. 2. ATTACHMENTS The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for your review and submittal (see asterisk): Attachment A – Proposer’s Information Form* Attachment B – Scope of Work/Services Attachment C – Sample Agreement for Professional Services Attachment D – Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to City’s Needs Attachment E – Cost Proposal Format Attachment F – Insurance Requirement The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal. 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.1 Pre-Proposal Conference (Non-Mandatory) A non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting/teleconference will be held on Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M., PST in the City’s Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. All prospective proposers are strongly encouraged to attend the meeting in person, but prospective proposers may attend by way of teleconference. To join the teleconference, dial (605) 475-4800, Host Access Code: 707751*, and Participant Access Code: 707751#. Prospective proposers do not have to attend this pre-proposal teleconference/meeting in order to submit a proposal to this RFP. 3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they: 2 3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this proposal. 3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted. 3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and correct. 3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly, with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal. 3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or condition. 3.3 Addenda/Clarifications Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City by way of email no later than 1:00 P.M. PST, Friday, August 3, 2012. Correspondence shall be sent to Adrian Brown, Contract Administrator by way of email at Adrian.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org . Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be accepted and will be returned to senders without response. All addenda shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s Form. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives. 3.4 Submission of Proposals All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mail Stop MB Palo Alto, CA 94301 3 RFP Proposals must be delivered no later than 3:00 P.M. PST on Tuesday, August 14, 2012. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the Proposer unopened. The Proposer shall submit Five (5) hard copies and two electronic (CDs) of its proposal in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, bearing the Proposer’s name and address clearly marked, “RFP NO. 146017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STAFFING SERVICES.” The use of color in your hard copy is preferred, but not required. The use of color is required for electronic copies. The use of double-sided paper with a minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content is strongly encouraged. Please do not submit proposals in plastic binders. A soft-copy of the RFP and response documents are required, and should be in Microsoft Office format allowing us to save a copy as an editable file for internal review. Burn and include 2 CDs with the soft-copy of your response documents per, to allow for distribution of your response internally. Vendors are solely responsible for ensuring timely receipt of their responses 3.5 Withdrawal of Proposals A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer. 3.6 Rights of the City of Palo Alto This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves the right to: Make the selection based on its sole discretion; Reject any and all proposals; Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals; Postpone opening for its own convenience; Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process; Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants; Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers; Accept other than the lowest offer; Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City. 4 An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer. 4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE The tentative RFP timeline is as follows: RFP Issued 07/23/2012 Pre-Proposal Meeting 08/02/2012 9:00 AM PST Deadline for Questions, Clarifications 08/03/2012 1:00 PM PST Answers Provided to Questions 08/08/2012 Proposals Due 08/14/2012 3:00 PM PST Finalist Identified 08/21/2012 Consultant Interviews 08/27/2012 – 08/30/2012 Consultant Selection and Contract Preparation 08/31/2012 Contract Awarded 09/10/2012 Work Commences 09/17/2012 5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only) These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered in the evaluation. All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document. 5.1 Chapter 1 – Proposal Summary This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet. 5.2 Chapter 2 – Profile on the Proposing Firm(s) This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and 5 resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including similar information about the firms. Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five years. 5.3 Chapter 3 – Qualifications of the Firm This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub- Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related projects. Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being developed. 5.4 Chapter 4 – Work Plan or Proposal This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall establish that the Proposer understands the City’s objectives and work requirements and Proposer’s ability to satisfy those objectives and requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the required services and the firm’s ability to meet the City’s schedule, outlining the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services. 5.5 Chapter 5 – Proposed Innovations The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas, innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal that would provide benefit to the City. 5.6 Chapter 6 – Project Staffing 6 This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and specific responsibilities on the project. An organizational chart for the project team and resumes for key Proposer personnel shall be included. Key personnel will be an important factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may be cause for rejection of the proposal. 5.7 Chapter 7 – Proposal Exceptions This Chapter shall discuss any exceptions or requested changes that Proposer has to the City’s RFP conditions, requirements and sample contract. If there are no exceptions noted, it is assumed the Proposer will accept all conditions and requirements identified in the Attachment C – “Sample Agreement for Services.” Items not excepted will not be open to later negotiation. 5.8 Chapter 8 – Proposal Costs Sheet and Rates to be provide in separate sealed envelope The fee information is relevant to a determination of whether the fee is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided. Provision of this information assists the City in determining the firm’s understanding of the project, and provides staff with tools to negotiate the cost, provide in a table (See Table, Attachment E). This Chapter shall include the proposed costs to provide the services desired. Include any other cost and price information, plus a not-to-exceed amount, that would be contained in a potential agreement with the City. The hourly rates may be used for pricing the cost of additional services outlined in the Scope of Work. PLEASE NOTE: The City of Palo Alto does not pay for services before it receives them. Therefore, do not propose contract terms that call for upfront payments or deposits. 6. CONTRACT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this solicitation, if awarded, will be a fixed fee form of contract. A Sample Agreement of Services is provided as Attachment C. The method of payment to the successful Proposer shall be on a fixed fee basis with a maximum “not to exceed” fee as set by the Proposer in the proposal or as negotiated between the Proposer and the City as being the maximum cost to perform all work. This figure shall include direct costs and overhead, such as, but limited to, transportation, communications, subsistence and materials and 7 any subcontracted items of work. Progress payments will be based on a percentage of project completed. Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including Insurance Requirements in Attachment F. If a Proposer desires to take exception to the Agreement, Proposer shall provide the following information in Chapter 7 of their submittal package. Please include the following: Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement, including all relevant Attachments. Proposer shall furnish the reasons for, as well as specific recommendations, for alternative language. The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. Proposals that take substantial exceptions to the proposed Agreement may be determined by the City, at its sole discretion, to be unacceptable and no longer considered for award. Insurance Requirements The selected Proposer(s), at Proposer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum, all of the insurance requirements outlined in Attachment F. All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the approval of the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the Risk Manager. The selected Proposer agrees to provide the City with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of contract. 7. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS City staff will evaluate the proposals provided based on the following criteria: 7.1 Quality and completeness of proposal; 7.2 Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, goods and/or services to be provided by the Proposer; 7.3 Proposers experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity; 7.4 Cost to the city; 7.5 Proposer’s financial stability; 7.6 Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time specified; 7.7 Proposer’s prior record of performance with city or others; 7.8 Proposer’s ability to provide future maintenance, repairs parts and/or services; and 8 7.9 Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the contractor. The selection committee will make a recommendation to the awarding authority. The acceptance of the proposal will be evidenced by written Notice of Award from the City’s Purchasing/Contract Administration Division to the successful Proposer. 8. ORAL INTERVIEWS Proposers may be required to participate in an oral interview. The oral interview will be a panel comprised of members of the selection committee. Proposers may only ask questions that are intended to clarify the questions that they are being asked to respond. Each Proposer’s time slot for oral interviews will be determined randomly. Proposers who are selected shall make every effort to attend. If representatives of the City experience difficulty on the part of any Proposer in scheduling a time for the oral interview, it may result in disqualification from further consideration. 9. PUBLIC NATURE OF MATERIALS Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City of Palo Alto. At such time as the Administrative Services Department recommends to form to the City Manager or to the City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in response to this RFP becomes a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary”. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive. Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Palo Alto may not accept or approve that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the City shall provide the Proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. 9 10. COLLUSION By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal. 11. DISQUALIFICATION Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration: 11.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal; 11.2 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team; 11.3 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the City; 11.4 Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal; 11.5 Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligation of the proposal; and 11.6 Proposer’s default under any previous agreement with the City, which results in termination of the Agreement. 12. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of, from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non- acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City. 13. GRATUITIES No person shall offer, give or agree to give any City employee any gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with the award of contract by the city. No city employee shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with a city contract. 14. FIRMS OR PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL 10 In order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict or interest, Proposer(s) selected to provide professional services under this RFP will be subject to the following requirements: 14.1 The Proposer(s) who works on the procurement will be precluded from submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor in the ultimate procurement. 14.2 The Proposer(s) may not have interest in any potential Proposer for the ultimate procurement. ~ End of Section ~ 6330.txt There are three PRs associated with this CMR they are PR146017 - Genuent, PR148026 - 22nd Century Technologies, and PR148027 - IntelliBridge Partners. These vendors will be used for temporary ITD services needs. KBP 10/09/12 Page 1 EXHIBIT “B” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit B-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for the performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($350,000). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1 entitled “HOURLY RATE SCJEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: NONE A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization o CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4468) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Canopy Contract Title: Approval of a Contract with Canopy for a Three-Year Period Not to Exceed $354,630 for Assistance with Urban Forestry Programs and Community Outreach From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the attached three-year contract with Canopy (Attachment A) in an amount of $118,210 per year not to exceed a three-year total of $354,630 to support Palo Alto’s urban forestry programs, cooperate with the City to implement policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan, and engage residents in learning about trees, their importance and how to care for them. Background Canopy was created in 1996 to support Palo Alto’s Urban Forestry section and engage residents by educating them about the importance of trees and how to care for them. After becoming an independent 501(c)3 non-profit corporation in 2002, Canopy greatly expanded its programs of tree planning and planting, tree stewardship, hands-on learning and environmental education. Canopy’s main focus is to assist the City of Palo Alto with projects and outreach with the goal of creating a continually replenished, climate-adapted, sustainable, and healthy urban forest. Canopy's work is accomplished by a diverse range of dedicated volunteers, board members, and supporters as well as a small staff of three. Over the last decade, Canopy’s excellence has been recognized as the organization has received awards from Palo Alto’s Chamber of Commerce, Stanford University, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Home Depot Foundation. City of Palo Alto Page 2 For the past three years Canopy has assisted City programs by serving as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees with numerous projects and outreach programs that included organizing and training volunteers to plant and prune trees; developing a website that includes a tree photo library; operating a “Treeline” service, where citizens can phone in or e-mail specific questions about trees; publishing a list of International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists for distribution to the community; and preparing and guiding eleven ‘Tree Walks’ in various neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto along with our annual Mayor’s tree planting and Arbor Day celebration. Canopy’s programs also include creating and distributing proper tree-pruning and planting brochures; collecting data and reporting on the health of newly planted trees; and administering the Utilities Department’s ‘Right-Tree-Right-Place’ Program. Canopy has managed to leverage the contract funds that are provided by the City of Palo Alto with over $260,000 of service contributions during FY 2013, and engage more than 1,500 volunteers to dedicate over 3,800 hours of service, though the benefit of outreach and relationships with community members are likely to far exceed simply the value which has been recorded. Discussion With the formal adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) expected to occur this year, the City is asking Canopy to expand its current ambitious list of programming and outreach to include execution of the UFMP priorities. Canopy is specifically mentioned as an implementer in the Goals, Policies, and Programs within this document; therefore, it is necessary to expand Canopy’s scope of services to include new tasks to accomplish while ensuring they continue providing their current high level of service. The enhanced services will increase the current contract by $35,000 annually, making the total annual contract $118,210. The enhanced services include expanding outreach efforts to incrementally reduce the number of utility trees which require pruning or removal by creating a ‘Preferred and Restricted Species List’, developing site-specific-species selection protocols to complement this list, and encouraging local nurseries and garden centers to supply trees on these lists to Palo Alto residents and businesses. Canopy will also assist the City in developing a public awareness website through which the City can share information about the benefits of the urban forest and individual trees of interest. This website will be a tool for engaging the community as partners in stewardship, City of Palo Alto Page 3 and expanding outreach programs to ensure residents, property, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the urban forest. They will conduct at least two community trees plantings per year, update the 1997 Oakwell Survey, establish a recurring forum that provides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree concerns and ideas, digitize field-collected data, and work with the City to integrate survey collection and results into the City’s TreeKeeper software program. A quarterly reporting system of detailed metrics established in the contract will provide quantitative evidence of program and outreach successes to the City of Palo Alto. Canopy has the unique expertise, proven experience, professional stature and key personnel to provide this level of service to the City of Palo Alto. Additionally, Canopy has a relationship deeply rooted with the residents of Palo Alto, with memberships comprised largely of Palo Alto’s residents and businesses. Staff recommends that Council approves a sole source justification and a three-year contract with Canopy, since no other organization can provide these services. Timeline The City’s current 3-year contract with Canopy includes compensation for professional services and reimbursable expenses and expires on March 31, 2014. This action is to aquire a new 3-year contract beginning April 1, 2014. Resource Impact Funding for Canopy’s contract is available in the Public Works Department, Public Services Division and Utilities Line Clearing operating budgets. The contract amount recommended in this report is $35,000 higher for each year of the contract, as compared to the contract that expires on March 31, 2014. Despite the increase to this contract, there will be no net impact resulting from this action. The incremental increase will be funded out of the Electric Fund’s annual allocation for utility line clearing, offset by a reduction to the allocation for tree trimming activities. The reduction to tree trimming activities is not anticipated to have a negative impact, as the efforts supported by Canopy would deter planting of trees that would eventually interfere with electric lines. Subsequent years of the contract are subject to Council’s approval of each fiscal years Public Works and Utility Electric operating budgets. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Implications This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review (If Applicable) The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(h) (maintenance of existing landscape). Attachments: GENERAL SERVICES Contract Canopy_2-18-14 Final3 (DOC) CANOPY Sole Source Revised (2) (DOC) 1 Rev. July 11, 2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14153485 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 1st day of APRIL, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Chartered Municipal Corporation (“CITY”), and CANOPY, a nonprofit organization, located at 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, Ca 94303, Telephone Number: 650-964-6110 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (“Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” - Compensation “D” - Insurance Requirements “E” - Performance and/or Payment Bond “F” - Liquidated Damages CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR Rev. July 11, 2011 2 A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ten dollars ($384,210.00). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. The City has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is:Courtney Schumm, Dept.: Public Works Department, Urban Forestry Section, Rev. July 11, 2011 3 Telephone: 650-496-6946. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 6 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. Rev. July 11, 2011 4 CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. J. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager. The City’s Risk Rev. July 11, 2011 5 Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the City’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to CITY’s Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the CITY’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that the CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract. O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Rev. July 11, 2011 6 P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to Contractor’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of the CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the CITY. S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. Rev. July 11, 2011 7 V. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Contractor shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by Contractor to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Contractor shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Y. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Contract. Rev. July 11, 2011 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO CANOPY _______________________________ By________________________________ City Manager Name _____________________________ Title_______________________________ Approved as to form: _____________________________________ Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 The responsibilities of the City will include the following: City Arborists, tree staff and CSD staff will coordinate and cooperate with Canopy to facilitate special events, such as the annual Mayor’s tree planting, Arbor Day Planting events, other public right of way plantings, Young Tree Care Survey, Right Tree Right Place program and city wide educational events. City staff will be responsible for locating and planning planting sites for these events. 1.2 Canopy’s responsibilities will include the following: A. Serve as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees. B. Educate and motivate Palo Alto residents to plant, care for, and celebrate trees. C. Maintain an organization with a credible, professional identity and high public visibility in support of the Palo Alto urban forest. D. Assist the City of Palo Alto in its planning and performance of urban forestry programs on an ongoing basis. E. Conduct an assessment of the health of recently planted street trees. F. Administer the Utilities Department’s Right Tree in the Right Place Program (RTRP). Action Plans Goal A: Serve as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees. 1. Perform timely updates of the new Canopy website. Report in quarterly invoices on the number of visits to the website, total number of page views, and traffic numbers by page title. Provide a percentage of traffic generated through key word searches. Rev. July 11, 2011 2. Operate and publicize Canopy’s information and referral “Treeline” where people can phone in or email to ask specific questions about trees. Report in quarterly invoices on the number of calls fielded by Canopy staff. 3. Maintain the list of ISA Certified Arborists for distribution to the community. Publish the list online. 4. Complete work on the Canopy online Tree Library. 5. Implement Program 1.A.ii of the UFMP by developing a “Preferred and Restricted Species List”. 6. Implement Program 1.A.iii of the UFMP by developing site-specific-species- selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List”. 7. Implement Program 2.C.iii.of the UFMP by developing a list of tree species acceptable for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. Goal B: Educate and motivate Palo Alto residents to plant, care for, and celebrate trees. 1. Prepare, plan and schedule at least eleven tree walks in various neighborhoods led by knowledgeable arborists. Develop guideline materials for lead arborists and Canopy representatives. Report in quarterly invoices on the number of walks conducted, walk locations, and number of attendees. 2. Prepare, plan and schedule at least one public education program about trees and/or tree care each year including Arbor Day, Planting Leader Training, Tree Care Training and current and relevant topics. 3. Provide educational materials at area community fairs and events and produce new material on subjects such as tree maintenance, mistakes to avoid, and watering guidelines. 4. Work with the Public Works Urban Forestry Section to design a strategy to increase the number of street trees plantings in South Palo Alto. 5. Publish and distribute an annual report to the community. Publish monthly TreEnews electronic newsletters. Report in quarterly invoices on the number of issues published and types of social media utilized to host TreEnews. Rev. July 11, 2011 6. Use community events in the field as opportunities to educate participants in proper tree planting and maintenance techniques. Provide volunteer field services for up to 100 public trees. These services can include planting of new trees and tree care for young trees. 7. Maintain a liaison with the Palo Alto School District (PAUSD) to increase awareness of the value of the trees on school district land, which could include educational events for students. 8. Organize the annual Mayor’s Tree Planting and Arbor Day Event. 9. Conduct at least two community plantings per year with the goal of planting a total of 45 trees over three years with 60 volunteers. Regularly inspect these trees and report problems or concerns utilizing the Urban Forestry Section’s TreeKeeper software. 10. Implement Program 1.B.i. of the UFMP by encouraging local nurseries and garden centers to supply trees on the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” with emphasis on those that are tolerant to drought and recycled water. 11. Implement Program 1.D.i. of the UFMP by creating an outreach program to ensure residents, property owners, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the urban forest, and encourage residents to plant the appropriate trees (‘Trees to Plant Now’) on their properties. 12. Implement Program 4.G.iii. of the UFMP by assisting the City of Palo Alto in developing open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and improving data currency and accuracy. 13. Report in quarterly invoices on programs including but not limited to plantings, tree care and education. Provide details on activities, volunteer numbers and hours, educational materials, youth & adult education, and outreach. Goal C: Maintain an organization with a credible, professional identity and high public visibility in support of the Palo Alto urban forest. Leverage CPA funding to Canopy with funding from other sources. 1. Conduct donor/membership recruitment to ensure a broad base of support for Canopy and its activities. Rev. July 11, 2011 2. Seek participation and support from the commercial and industrial community. 3. Maintain and implement communications strategy. 4. Continue to seek other financial support (e.g., grants) outside of City government to provide increased services to the community and to increase public involvement. 5. Report in quarterly invoices on the governance, operations and capacity building to engage new members and increase efficiency. Goal D: Assist the City of Palo Alto in its planning and performance of urban forestry programs. 1. Continue participating in the development of the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan. 2. Work with the Public Works Urban Forestry Section to design a strategy to increase the number of street tree plantings in particular in South Palo Alto. 3. Implement Program 1.C.ii. of the UFMP by updating the Oakwell survey to assess changes in the population of native oaks since 1997. 4. Implement Programs 3.A.i. and 3.A.iii of the UFMP by conducting at least four community outreach meetings to educate and get feedback for the website as a resource and to discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey and establish a recurring forum that provides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree concerns and ideas. 5. Report in quarterly invoices on consulting of and advocacy for projects involving the City of Palo Alto’s Urban Forestry Section. Goal E: Conduct an assessment of the health of recently planted street trees. 1. Conduct a City-wide survey of newly planted street trees for each term of this agreement and report tree condition information to the Public Works Department. Rev. July 11, 2011 2. Organize and train a cadre of volunteers to monitor the condition of young trees, and perform simple maintenance tasks on site. 3. Assist the Public Works Operations Urban Forestry Section in completing the redesign of the Palo Alto Young Tree Program communications material with a planting pamphlet. 4. Mail the “Is Your Tree Thirsty?” reminder postcard at least once during each summer, and distribute tree care information to each resident with a street tree planted in the last five years. Post the “Is Your Tree Thirsty?” banner in a prominent area of the City. 5. Work with the City of Palo Alto to integrate survey collection and results into the City’s TreeKeeper software program and future open-source mapping system. Goal F: Administer the Utilities Department’s Right Tree in the Right Place Program (RTRP). 1. Continue to advertise, respond to, and screen inquiries about the RTRP before forwarding requests to Public Works for inspection. 2. Administer the process for successful applicants of the RTRP program, including acceptance notification, information mailing, removal confirmation, stump grinding and replanting at each location. Promote replanting where suitable. 3. Review bids and forward paperwork to Utilities for reimbursement procedure and provide quarterly summary spreadsheet reports of activities. 4. With CPA Public Utilities and PW Tree Division, assist in design and implementation of the extension of the RTRP program to businesses. 5. With CPA Public Utilities, assist in design and implementation of the Shade Tree Program for residential and commercial properties. Report in quarterly invoices details concerning information distributed and consultancy provided during the City of Palo Alto Utility Department sponsored events or programs. 6. Work with CPA Public Utilities to explore growth opportunities for the RTRP program such as including greenhouse gas, energy efficiency, heat island effect, local tree ordinances, and solar access requirements in RTRP and incorporating APPA Tree Power Program education and outreach materials. Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services so as to complete each task within the time period specified below. The time to complete each task may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONTRACTOR and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Upon request CONTRACTOR shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below. Task Completion Date Serve as a comprehensive information source about Palo Alto trees Ongoing Educate and motivate Palo Alto residents to plant, are fore, and celebrate trees Ongoing Maintain and organization with a credible, professional identity an high public visibility in support of the Palo Alto urban forest Ongoing Assist the City of Palo Alto in its planning an performance of urban forestry programs on an ongoing basis Ongoing Conduct an assessment of the health of recently planted street trees Ongoing Administer the Utilities Department’s Right Tree in the Right Place Program (RTRP) Ongoing Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES Compensation based upon fee schedule CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three hundred eighty four thousand two hundred ten Dollars ($384,210.00). Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City. INSERT DETAILED RATE SCHEDULE Canopy Staff Hourly Rate $ Executive Director 110.00 Program Director 65.00 Communication & Development Director 65.00 Education and Community Outreach Manager 40.00 Program Coordinator 40.00 Administrative Associate 40.00 Interns/ Youth Staff 23.00 Volunteers (Palo Alto only) 25.00 Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIR ED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 Rev. July 11, 2011 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. Rev. July 11, 2011 C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 PURCHASING GUIDE – APPENDIX E PAGE 1 OF 2 REVISED 11/09/10 Date of Request: __4/21/11_______________ To: Jose Arreola Buyer or Contracts Administrator From: Paul Dornell / Mike Sartor Public Works - Operations (Requestor) (Department/Division) Request for the purchase of: Contract agreement for support of urban forest. Requested supplier/vendor, if known: CANOPY Vendor Address: 3921 East Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto, CA Vendor Contact: Catherine Martineau Vendor Phone: 650-964-6110 Purchase Requisition #: S11139460 PR141246 Total Estimated Cost : $83,210 $62,407.50 JUSTIFICATION: Justification must include the following: 1. A description of the unique need that necessitates a sole source or single source purchase, a product standardization request, or other type of exemption from competitive solicitation. 2. A statement describing the actions taken by the department during the search for the project or service. (e.g. which other product or service reviewed) 3. Any reviews, reports, or specifications prepared by the department during the research for available products or services. 4. Expected Term of contract. (e.g. Month Begin/End Year: Month/ Year) PROVIDE YOUR JUSTIFICATION HERE: The City has a long-term partnership with the CANOPY organization to provide a number of specialized services related to the health and future of the urban forest. CANOPY provides specialized services such as holding Arborist-lead field walks for residents, assisting the City manage the “right tree, right place” program for our electrical reliability, organizes and participates in community planting events, host Arbor Day Festival, deliver presentations to City Council on accomplishments and goals, partner with City to develop the Urban Forest Master Plan, provide advisory services on several City projects including the California Avenue Phase II Plan design and the Landscape planning for the regional Water Quality Plant and staffing tables at community events including the Palo Alto MLK Day of Service Fair, the Garden Club of Palo Alto and Neighborhood Association meetings. Approval of this Sole Source will support CANOPY’s continued partnership with the City for the benefit of our residents and the urban forest through March 31, 2014. In addition, CANOPY has continued to provide services to the City in FY 2010-11 though a contract is not in place. CANOPY obviously relied on past practice and provided the services in good faith. The City accepted these services, as evidenced by CANOPY’s participation in multiple community events and its active participation in the ongoing development of the Urban Forest Master Plan. CANOPY has submitted three quarterly invoices (July 1 – September 30, 2010; October 1 – December 31, 2010; January 1 – March 31, 2011) totaling $62,407.50 and therefore this sole source requires a separate encumbrance to pay these previous obligations. A mid-year report has also been submitted. FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS: After filling out your Request, please follow these instructions: 1. The departmental approval shall be obtained by sending this Request (filled out by requestor) as an attachment via email to the Department Head, who approves by typing the words: “Request Approved”. (Any approvals required prior to this step shall be obtained at the Department Head’s discretion and are not required as an attachment to the email.) 2. The Department Head then forwards the same email directly to the Buyer or Contract Manager assigned to the purchase requisition. (See name at top of form.) 3. The Buyer or Contract Manager will obtain Purchasing Manager and City Manager approvals prior to processing the Request. Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX E - SOLE SOURCE, PRODUCT STANDARDIZATION AND OTHER EXEMPTIONS PAGE 2 OF 2 Revised 11/09/10 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4554) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan Update Title: Comprehensive Plan Update - Review of Revised Approach, Schedule, Scope of Work, Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract C08125506 with The Planning Center | DCE in the amount of $597,206 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $200,000 for Consultant Support Related to the Ongoing Update of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan for the Future of Our City (Continued from March 3, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Motion Staff recommends that the City Council make the following motion: “Adopt the recommended schedule to complete the Comprehensive Plan amendment and associated program-level Environmental Impact Report by the end of 2015, approve Amendment Number 2 to Contract #C08125506 in the amount of $597,206 with The Planning Center|DCE to provide additional services associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project, and approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $200,000 to ensure the Planning and Community Environment Department has sufficient resources within the General Fund for the contract amendment.” Staff Recommendation Staff recommends reframing the ongoing planning process to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan in order to increase community engagement and provide for a more robust analysis of alternatives than originally anticipated, and requests that the City Council (a) adopt the revised project schedule to complete the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the end of CY 2015, (b) approve Amendment Number 2 to Contract #C08125506 in the amount of $597,206 with The Planning Center|DCE to provide additional services associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project for a total revised contract-not-to exceed amount of $1,737,206, and (c) City of Palo Alto Page 2 approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $200,000 to ensure the Planning and Community Environment Department has sufficient resources within the General Fund for the contract amendment. Executive Summary The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) guides land use and development decisions in Palo Alto and contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services. Many sections of the plan are required by State law, and the State recommends that local jurisdictions update their plans every ten years. The City Council initiated a Comp Plan update in 2006, envisioning an amendment with modest revisions and updates, as well as development of two geographic-based “concept area plans” for the California Avenue and east Meadow Circle areas. Starting in 2008, City staff reviewed the existing Comp Plan elements with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), obtained community input, prepared background reports, suggested revisions and additions to the existing plan. The work has been supported by a respected Bay Area planning consultant, The Planning Center|DCE (DCE), and has resulted in PTC recommendations, many of which have not yet been scheduled for City Council review. At a December 2, 2013 study session, the City Council discussed ways to initiate a conversation about the community’s shared vision for the future, and staff suggested reframing the long running Comp Plan process to increase community engagement and explore alternatives in a more meaningful way than originally envisioned. The discussion, which grew out of community concerns about issues such as traffic/parking and the pace of development, lead to development of an organizational framework for ideas, actions, and design called “Our Palo Alto.” On February 3, 2014, the Council endorsed this framework (see the diagram included as Attachment A) and directed staff to return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land use and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. Staff is recommending an approach to the project that would include expanded community engagement and concurrent planning and environmental review of multiple alternatives with an end date of December 2015. The project approach would be uniquely tailored to Palo Alto in a number of ways. First, it would use the work that has already been completed by the PTC as the “project description” for an extended “scoping” period, during which there would be a series of public meetings and online forums to explore alternative futures, disseminate and examine baseline data, and inform the analysis of cumulative impacts and development of mitigation strategies. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Second, the process would include an extended review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and concurrent public meetings and online forums to refine the text of policies and programs for the updated plan. Following this phase of the process and Council selection of a preferred alternative, staff and consultants would prepare a Final EIR and a final, updated Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the PTC and the Council at the end of 2015. The recommended approach also suggests appointment of a group of community members (“the leadership group”) to help guide community engagement efforts throughout the process, and preparation of a “users guide” about how the plan will be used and maintained once it’s completed. The ultimate goal of the process -- and the justification for the substantial investment of time and resources involved -- would be to adopt an updated Comprehensive Plan that expresses the community’s collective vision for the future of our City. Once complete, the updated plan would play a lasting role in guiding wise decision-making to preserve what is treasured about Palo Alto and to meet the challenges we face between now and the suggested plan horizon year of 2030. City staff is recommending approval of a contract amendment (contract Amendment Number 2) with The Planning Center | DCE, in the amount of $597,206 to help achieve the goals of the process. The contract amendment includes the unfinished scope and tasks from the original contract (dating back from 2008) and Contract Amendment Number 1 (approved by Council in June 2013) and includes new tasks for development of alternative future scenarios, expanded community engagement throughout this process, including development of on-line tools and surveys, preparation and attendance at public meetings during an extended environmental review scoping period, and development of a Comprehensive Plan Users Guide that summarizes and describes the intent, purpose, and use of the Comprehensive Plan. Contract Amendment Number 2 would bring the total consultant costs to $1,737,206. Background The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services. Its policies apply to both public and private properties and its focus is on the physical form of the City. The Plan is used by the City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission to evaluate land use changes and to make funding and budget decisions. It is used by City Staff to evaluate building and development and to make recommendations on projects. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for different geographic areas. The Plan provides the City of Palo Alto Page 4 basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvements program. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process So Far The Comp Plan amendment was initiated by the City Council in 2006 (CMR# 253:06) to focus on preservation of commercial land uses, preservation of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporate sustainability concepts, update the housing element and prepare concept area plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue/Fry’s areas. Between 2008 and 2010, City staff reviewed the existing Comp Plan elements with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), prepared background reports on baseline growth topics, and developed preliminary information regarding the two concept area plans. In 2010, the then PTC and City Council held a joint study session to address the Comp Plan amendment work plan, including the recommended approach to the Housing Element update (CMR# 152:10). In addition, the Council provided direction regarding updated growth projections, updates to the Comp Plan structure, vision, goals, policies and program statements, and additional work regarding review of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). The PTC completed an initial review of the Comp Plan vision statements, goals, policies and programs for each Comp Plan element, focusing on text edits and minor wording adjustments, and identifying more substantial changes and revisions to the Comp Plan that were desirable. The PTC then formed subcommittees consisting of two to three commissioners and City staff from the Planning Division as well as staff from other City departments to complete their reviews and recommendations, most of which are now complete. Consultant Support The work of each PTC subcommittee has been supported by DCE, the City’s consultant for the Comp Plan Amendment. Work performed by DCE included preliminary reviews of each existing Comp Plan element, suggestions for revisions to modernize and improve the elements based upon current general plan/comprehensive plan standards, and recommendation for the addition of sustainability policies and program concepts that would be appropriate for each element. Work completed under the existing scope includes: ● Comp Plan Amendment project initiation; ● Review of existing and potential future conditions that would affect the Comp Plan Amendment; ● Completion of the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Plan; City of Palo Alto Page 5 ● Assembling background information for existing Comp Plan elements; ● In consultation with City staff, initial; preparation of updates to goals, policies and programs in existing elements, and ● Addition of draft sustainability related goals, policies and programs throughout the Comp Plan. Work has not substantially commenced on the following previously scoped items: ● Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ● Preparation of the final draft of the Comp Plan Amendment, and ● Preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report. On June 24, 2013, Council approved Contract Amendment Number 1 (Staff Report #3756) that included tasks that would be performed in order to complete the Comp Plan Amendment. These tasks included: 1. Additional work on the California Avenue Concept Plan; 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Formatting; 3. Creation of the Comp Plan Amendment Implementation Matrix; 4. Preparation of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model; 5. Preparation of a Future Year Traffic demand Scenario for the Comp plan Amendment EIR; 6. Preparation of 2020 Greenhouse Gas Modeling; 7. Administration and maintenance of the Comp Plan Amendment website, www.paloaltocompplan.org The scope also included costs associated with the extended timeline and for previously approved work that were “borrowed” from the existing budget. The amount requested by the consultant was $274,092. Staff requested an additional $15,927 in contingency funds for a total contract amendment of $290,019. The Need for a Modified Process At the December 2, 2013 Council meeting (Staff Report #4294), Staff presented a report which provided a background of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and articulated the changes we’ve experienced over the past fifteen years and the challenges those changes have produced. At that meeting, Council held a study session to initiate a conversation about the City’s shared vision for the future and how to get there. Staff recommended that Council discuss the City of Palo Alto Page 6 initiation of an expanded public dialogue regarding the future of the city, including ongoing efforts to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan, re-examination of Planned Community (PC) district zoning, and other land use and development issues. The need for the discussion was born out of concerns of the pace of development within the city and how the Council should plan for and manage growth. Direction was given staff to return with specific recommendations for Council consideration and adoption. On February 3, 2014 staff presented Council with a conceptual framework for ideas, actions, and planning efforts throughout the year (Staff Report #4353). This Our Palo Alto conceptual framework and its component parts -- categorized as ideas, action, and design -- were illustrated in the attached summary handout. By a unanimous vote, Council endorsed the framework and requested that staff (a) convene a series of topical conversations and events throughout the year aimed at building community by broadening civic engagement about issues and ideas that are important to our City; (b) return to the Council with specific recommendations regarding near-term actions to address critical issues such as traffic and parking; and (c) return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land use and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. Discussion This report follows through on the Our Palo Alto framework and Council’s direction to Staff to return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land use and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. Staff is recommending the adoption of an approach and schedule (Attachment B) that reflects a community engagement plan with an extended “scoping” and exploration of alternative futures, and concurrent preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and updated Comprehensive Plan by the end of 2015.1 The following is a summary of this effort: Comprehensive Plan Start-Up Tasks (March-April 2014): Our initial work would begin immediately after Council approval of the contract amendment and would be focused on administrative actions to prepare for the additional tasks to follow. The activities and deliverables include: 1 The housing chapter, or “element,” of the Comprehensive Plan is being updated on a separate schedule due to requirements of State law and will be completed in January 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Community Kick-off Event: 1998 Comprehensive Plan Reunion- The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan has served the City for city well for many years. A reunion-style event will honor the individuals and groups who worked on the document for much of the 1990’s. This would be an opportunity to present the schedule for the upcoming effort and invite community engagement in the new planning process. Community Leadership Group- City staff proposes to convene a group of 12-15 interested community members to assist with community engagement and outreach activities. The leadership group would meet with City staff to review the community engagement plan, receive regular reports regarding activities and outcomes, and recommend adjustments to promote greater participation. City staff expects to meet with the leadership group on a monthly basis throughout the process. Website Development – the consultants would create an updated website for dissemination of information about the Comp Plan process, with functionality to support webinars and on-line discussions intended to supplement (or extend) the discussions that happen at traditional community meetings and via traditional media. “Project Description” & Notice of Preparation (NOP)- the staff and consultants would use the PTC’s recommendations as the basis of a project description for dissemination with a NOP, which is a required document informing the public and local & state agencies that the City intends to prepare an EIR. Issuance of the NOP represents the start of the first significant public comment phase, known as the “scoping period,” as described below. Scoping and Alternatives Development (April through early August 2014): Typically, when an NOP for an EIR is released, it is the public’s responsibility to seek out project information, review materials, attend an official scoping meeting held at City Hall, and prepare written comments prior to a 30-day deadline. The approach City staff is proposing for this effort would be much different than the typical process. Although the legally-required noticing, hearing, and scoping period will be provided, the City would conduct an expanded public engagement effort that would extend opportunities for dialogue to members of our community that typically have not participated in local government affairs via the City’s traditional methods. Methods to be used would include: City of Palo Alto Page 8 Website and Internet-based survey and engagement tools- many community members have become accustomed to interacting with Palo Alto government through the City’s website. Staff would expand and enhance opportunities for community engagement through the use of tools such as Open City Hall, Internet-based surveys, and unique participatory applications, such as CommunityPlanit (www.communityplanit.com) or a comparable approach, in order to connect with citizens who may not otherwise attend City meetings. As noted above, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment website (www.paloaltocompplan.org) would be re-organized to improve the access and availability of all information generated from this effort. Website input and interactions would be tracked, analyzed, and communicated to the public. Going out to the community- Palo Alto has a diverse and extensive network of community partners that have worked to improve the City for many years. We are also fortunate to have a strong network of neighborhood organizations, and the City’s boards and commissions are staffed with citizen volunteers who donate valuable time to serve the City. These existing groups are ideal audiences for the City to engage regarding the future of the City, and can also be ambassadors, helping to spread the word and expand the conversation. Staff envisions councilmembers, Planning & Transportation commissioners, and staff of multiple departments initiating presentations in order to connect with a wide range of people and ideas. Community connections may occur as one-on-one meetings or in large assemblies. These conversations would be framed with two or three high level questions, or more specific inquiries about issues or geographic areas of the City. Responses from all meetings would be complied, analyzed and reported back to the community. Meeting data would be tracked and posted on the website to demonstrate progress. Planning Department sponsored meetings - The Planning Department anticipates sponsoring meetings, workshops, and symposia to present information, conduct conversations, and provide educational opportunities for the public on topics associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment effort during the extended scoping process. These “scoping meetings” would be more interactive than traditional scoping meetings, providing information and dialog about: Demographic changes and trends Growth management strategies Baseline data and projections Our Plan So Far: what’s worth preserving and where change will happen? Critical issues and alternative futures City of Palo Alto Page 9 It is anticipated that each of these meetings would be recorded and posted on www.paloaltocompplan.org so that they may viewed at any time. Final scoping meetings would provide opportunities for people to comment on the environmental analysis to be prepared and alternative development scenarios that should be considered at formal meetings conducted by the Planning & Transportation Commission and the City Council. Alternative development scenarios would be discussed throughout this phase, along with growth management tools, baseline data, potential impacts and mitigation. The goal would be to develop a short list of alternative scenarios based upon community input that could be presented to the Council during a final scoping meeting prior to preparation of the Draft EIR. Following Council direction, the proposed alternatives would be analyzed at an equal level of detail within the Draft EIR. Draft EIR & Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Mid-December 2014 through Mid-April 2015): With timely completion of the NOP scoping period and Council direction on three alternatives for analysis, City staff anticipates releasing the Draft EIR for public review in December 2014. A public review period would commence and extend for approximately five months, substantially longer than the 60-day review period for similar CEQA documents. This longer review period would allow for a second community engagement and public meeting opportunity, which would employ similar tools, processes, and workshops to allow for extensive public dialog regarding a preferred alternative and policy language in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Concurrent with the release of the Draft EIR, staff would also release a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Working (80%) Draft. This document would include the draft Comprehensive Plan elements developed by the City staff and the Planning & Transportation subcommittee, as amended by the comments received during the community engagement exercise and the environmental analysis contained within the Draft EIR. The purpose of this specific document is to communicate proposed goals, policies and programs of each element and provide a contextual relationship between each element. The public review of this document would be concurrent with the Draft EIR. Public comments received during this period would be collected and used to inform selection of a preferred alternative, as well as changes to the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Written responses to substantive comments on the Draft EIR would also be prepared for inclusion in a Final EIR. Final EIR & Final Comprehensive Plan Amendment (August 2015-December 2015): City of Palo Alto Page 10 The conclusion of the Draft EIR and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Working Draft review period will initiate the preparation of the Final EIR and the Final 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Final EIR would contain a quantitative analysis of the preferred future development scenario as well as responses to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period. The Final 2030 Comprehensive Plan would include each element and chapter, narratives, maps, charts, graphs, photographs in a format meant to represent a completed document. Staff anticipates that Council would certify the Final EIR and adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in December 2015 after a final series of public presentations and review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Resource Impact Amendment Number 2 (Attachment C), requests an addition of $597,206 to the contract titled “Comprehensive Plan Amendment Services, Contract #C08125506.” The Department of Planning and Community Environment’s budget for the Fiscal Year 2014 has sufficient resources to support all but $200,000 of the increased contract amount. The Department can support such a portion of this expense as a result of funds which were carried over from prior fiscal years in anticipation of additional work that would be required on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Another reason the Department will also be able to support the majority of the expenses for this amendment is due to a reallocation of $165,000 from the 27 University Avenue Project towards the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These resources were allocated to the Department as part of the FY 2014 Adopted Budget for community engagement related to the 27 University Avenue Project, however, any community engagement related to that project or location will now be supported out of the Comprehensive Amendment contract. A Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment D) in the amount of $200,000 is recommended as part of this action. . The $200,000 figure includes a $50,000 reserve for unanticipated expenses that are not part of the current contract, which is justified due to the complexity of the project and the community engagement efforts involved. Upon approval of this report, the Department will encumber the funds required for the contract amendment, which are anticipated to be sufficient for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As described above, Amendment Number 2 will provide the additional work needed to finish the project by the expected completion date. The total cost of the project after Amendments 1 and 2 is summarized in the following table: Exhibit Summary Breakdown Total Cost Original Contract Total w/ Contingency (CMR:193:08) $849,981 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Amendment #1 w/ Contingency (SR# 3756), which included additional work, including: Completion of the Cal Ave Concept Area Plan; Preparation of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model; Creation of the Comp Plan Amendment Implementation Matrix, and Additional website administration. $290,019 Exhibit A (Amendment 2 Total) $597,206 Revised Contract Grand Total $1,737,206 Policy Implications Updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan is a critical effort if Palo Alto is to remain in compliance with State law and to have a coherent vision for the future. These efforts, as well as ongoing initiatives related to traffic and parking, can honor the policies and programs of the existing Comprehensive Plan, including Program G-2: Periodically assess the need for citizen input on various policy issues and appoint advisory bodies and ad hoc committees as needed, and Policy G-11: Encourage the development of new planning processes that emphasizes a collaborative exchange of ideas. Retain City Council authority over decision-making in these processes. Contract Amendment Number 2 does not represent a change to existing policies. Environmental Review The action to endorse the Our Palo Alto-Design effort described in this staff report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The future actions that would be taken, including adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, are not exempt from CEQA and environmental analysis consistent with the provisions of CEQA would be conducted and presented as part of a recommendation for a future action. Attachments: Attachment A: Our Palo Alto - A Community Conversation About Our Future (PDF) Attachment B: SOW_CompPlanAmendment_022114 (PDF) Attachment C: Contract C08125506 Amendment 2 with Design Community and Environment, Inc. (PDF) Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Amendment BAO (PDF) ATTACHMENT B: M E M O RA NDUM D AT E February 25, 2014 TO Hilary Gitelman, Steven Turner, and Planning Staff City of Palo Alto F RO M Andrew Hill, Joanna Jamsen, and Charlie Knox RE Scope of Work for the Refined Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process The following scope of work reflects the merging of the planning and environmental review components of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process. The tasks below are intended to ensure significant and meaningful public consultation that will inform and shape the alternatives to be considered by the City Council. Further, the scope reflects the consolidation in environmental review activities so that CEQA analysis will begin after the identification and City Council approval of Draft EIR Alternatives and Comprehensive Plan scenarios to be analyzed. TASK A: PROJECT STARTUP Task A will include City Council approval of the scope of work, schedule and budget. In addition, The Planning Center | DC&E and Staff (“Consultant”) shall perform the following tasks: Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff and Our Palo Alto Team The Consultant shall attend one (1) kick-off meeting with City Staff and Our Palo Alto Team. Preparation of Existing Setting and Baseline Date Reports The Consultant shall prepare existing setting and baseline data reports, including traffic counts and other existing setting data, in the format of EIR existing setting sections. The reports shall be submitted as administrative drafts to the City for review. Upon review from City Staff, the Consultant shall prepare screencheck drafts for a second round of City review and consultant revision, followed by the public release of each of the existing setting reports. Preparation of “Our Plan So Far” (OPSF) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) PAGE 2 The Consultant shall prepare buildout calculations of the existing General Plan land use map, based on data provided by the City, and prepare and submit an administrative draft of the OPSF to the City for review. In addition, the Consultant shall prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) for City review. Upon City review, the Consultant shall prepare a screencheck of the OPSF, followed by the release of OPSF and the NOP. Website Re-Organization The Consultant shall prepare a draft webstructure for City Staff review, followed by the website design incorporating comments and suggestions from City Staff. Upon completion of the website design, the Consultant shall prepare a presentation of the draft website for critique. The Consultant shall revise the draft website and prepare the website to go live. TASK B: SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Task B will include the development of Draft Environmental Impact Report alternatives and Comprehensive Plan Amendment scenarios through eliciting public input through several outreach measures such as scoping meetings, surveys, and webinars. The Consultant shall perform the following the tasks: Invitation to the Community The Consultant shall prepare a draft invitation to the community for City Staff review. Upon completion of City review, the Consultant shall release to the public the invitation, OPSF, and NOP. Scoping Meetings The Consultant shall prepare a draft memo describing the format and content of scoping meetings which will include a meeting to review the format and content of the scoping meetings. Upon review, the Consultant shall revise the draft memo accordingly. The Consultant shall facilitate up to three (3) scoping meetings, potentially at different locations throughout Palo Alto, each of which include the preparation and submittal of draft materials for each scoping meeting and a dry run prior to each scoping meeting. Companion Outreach PAGE 3 The Consultant shall prepare a draft memo detailing companion outreach strategies and schedule for City Staff review. The companion outreach strategies will include surveys, webinars, and Open Town Hall consultation. Upon completion of the City’s review, the Consultant shall finalize the memo. Following the finalization of outreach strategies, the Consultant shall book webinar presenters and hold two (2) webinars. Following the completion of the webinars, the Consultant shall prepare, and submit for City review, draft materials for Open Town Hall consultation. The Consultant shall then revise the draft materials and launch the Open Town Hall consultation. The Consultant will attend a PTC hearing to discuss alternative scenarios and facilitate an Open Town Hall consultation. Alternative Scenario Definition The consultant shall prepare a draft memo for City review summarizing public input gathered from the Open Town Hall consultation. In addition, the Consultant shall prepare a City Council packet prior to attending a City Council hearing discussing alternative scenarios. The City Council hearing will be intended to provide refinements to and direction on two alternative scenarios to be analyzed in the Draft EIR alongside Our Plan So Far. Following the City Council hearing, the Consultant shall finalize buildout calculations on the two alternative scenarios selected by the City Council. TASK C: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION Task C enables the simultaneous preparation and public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the draft goals, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Consultant shall perform the following tasks: Prepare DEIR with Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios The Consultant shall prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (DEIR) for City review, followed by a screencheck version of the DEIR. Upon completion of the screencheck, the Consultant shall release a public review DEIR. Transportation Analyses The Consultant shall prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will include traffic modeling, to the City for review. PAGE 4 • Data Collection o Multimodal roadway data, 2 streets (Detailed input requirements for automobile and non-automobile modes are presented in attached tables). o Turn Movements at 10 intersections, AM and PM. o Tube counts on 13 roadway segments, 24-hour counts. • Multimodal level of service. Two (2) locations: Park Boulevard and University Avenue. • Intersection LOS. Ten (10) Locations: 1. I-280 NB ramps and Sand Hill Road, 2. Middlefield Road and Charleston Road, 3. Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, 4. Alma Street and Charleston Road, 5. El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, 6. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway, 7. El Camino Real and Arastradero Road /Charleston Road, 8. El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, 9. Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road, and 10. Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road • Roadway Segment Daily LOS. Thirteen (13) Locations: 1. Sand Hill Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 2. University Avenue between El Camino Real and Route 101, 3. Page Mill Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 4. Arastradero Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 5. Oregon Expressway between El Camino Real and Route 101, 6. Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Route 101, 7. Charleston Road between El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, 8. San Antonio Road between El Camino Real and Route 101, 9. Middlefield Road between University Avenue and San Antonio Road, 10. Alma Street between University Avenue and San Antonio Road, 11. El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Page Mill Road, 12. El Camino Real between Page Mill Road and San Antonio Road, and 13. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway between Sand Hill Road and Arastradero Road. • Scenarios. Multimodal LOS, Intersection LOS, and Roadway Segment LOS apply to the following scenarios: o Existing, PAGE 5 o Baseline, o Our Plan So Far (Alternative 1), o Alternative 2, and o Alternative 3. Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy Document Preparation and Public Review The Consultant shall prepare an admin draft CPA Policy Document for City review, followed by the finalization and public release of the Draft CPA Policy Document concurrent with the release of the DEIR for the public review period. The CPA Policy Document will include all goals, policies, and programs but would not include background text or final graphics. The Consultant shall also facilitate one (1) community meeting, as well as attend a City Council hearing, to receive comments on the Draft CPA, and prepare and submit meeting summaries. Open Town Hall Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Policy Document The Consultant shall prepare a draft framework for the online consultation for City review. Upon City review, the Consultant shall go live with the online consultation with the Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR chapters, followed by preparing and submitting a summary of online input garnered from the online consultation. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Consultant shall prepare an Administrative Draft CPA to build upon the CPA Policy document by adding full elements with narratives, photos, and graphs for City review. In addition, the CPA will reflect the Preferred Land Use Alternative identified by the Council during the public review of the Draft EIR and Draft CPA Policy Document. Upon completion of City review, the Consultant shall prepare a screencheck Draft CPA, followed by the completion and release of a Public Review CPA. At the time of the public release, a 60-day public comment period on the CPA would be open. Final EIR After the close of the public review period of the Draft EIR, the Consultant shall prepare an admin Draft FEIR, including responding to comments and preparing a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), for City review. Upon PAGE 6 completion of the City review, the Consultant shall prepare a screencheck FEIR, followed by circulating the FEIR. Adoption and Certification: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Final EIR The Consultant shall attend one (1) PTC Hearing and one (1) City Council Hearing to certify the EIR and adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. TASK D: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINALIZATION Task D includes the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the preparation of the User Guide. Task D includes the following tasks to be performed by the Consultant: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Document The Consultant shall prepare and submit a draft memo for City review summarizing CPA edits made in response to public comments. Based on staff review and revision, the Consultant shall prepare and submit a Final CPA for City review, followed by the printing and posting of the Final CPA to the website. The Final CPA will be prepared and published at least two weeks before the PTC hearing to recommend certification of the EIR and adoption of the CPA. Prepare User Guide The Consultant shall prepare and submit an admin draft User Guide for City review, followed by the preparation of a screencheck. Upon completion of reviewing the screencheck, the User Guide shall be released to the public. 2014 2015 r pr y un ul ug ep c v t c Ma A Ma J J A S O No De n r pr y un ul ug ep c v t ca eb J F Ma A Ma J J A S O No De Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR Scope Refinement Draft Schedule 2014 2015 2016 February 21, 2014 TASK Start Finish Duration TASK A: START UP 1 City Council Approval of Scope, Schedule and Budget 3/4/2014 3/4/2014 0 2 Kick‐Off Meeting with City Staff and Our Palo Alto Team 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 0 3 Preparation of existing setting and baseline data reports 3/10/2014 5/14/2014 65 a. Traffic counts taken 3/10/2014 4/7/2014 28 b. Admin Draft report on traffic and parking submitted to City 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 0 c. Staff review 5/1/2014 5/7/2014 6 d. Other Admin Draft reports preparation 3/10/2014 4/30/2014 51 e. Staff review 4/30/2014 5/7/2014 7 f. Screencheck Drafts preparation 5/7/2014 5/12/2014 5 g. Public release of existing setting reports 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 4 Preparation of "Our Plan So Far" (OPSF) and NOP 3/10/2014 4/24/2014 45 a. Buildout calculation 3/10/2014 4/7/2014 28 b. Admin Draft OPSF preparation 3/10/2014 4/9/2014 30 c. Staff Review of Admin Draft 4/10/2014 4/17/2014 7 d. Prepare Draft NOP 4/7/2014 4/11/2014 4 e. Staff Review of Draft NOP 4/11/2014 4/17/2014 6 f. Screencheck OPSF preparation 4/17/2014 4/24/2014 7 g. Public release of OPSF and NOP (see Task B.1.c) 5 Website Re‐organization 3/10/2014 4/25/2014 46 a. Prepare Draft Webstructure 3/10/2014 3/24/2014 14 b. Staff Review 3/24/2014 3/31/2014 7 c. Website Design 4/1/2014 4/15/2014 14 d. Draft Website Presentation and Critique (telecon) 4/15/2014 4/15/2014 0 e. Revise and go live TASK B: SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 4/16/2014 4/25/2014 9 1 Invitation to the Community 3/10/2014 5/14/2014 65 a. Draft Invitation Preparation 4/23/2014 4/30/2014 7 b. Staff Review 4/30/2014 5/7/2014 7 c. Public Release of Invitation, OPSF, and NOP 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 2 Scoping Meetings 3/10/2014 6/18/2014 100 a. Draft Memo on scoping meeting format and content 3/10/2014 3/31/2014 21 b. Meeting to review memo 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 0 c. Revised memo submitted 4/8/2014 4/8/2014 7 d. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 1 submitted 5/7/2014 5/7/2014 0 e. Scoping Meeting 1 Dry Run 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 f. Scoping Meeting 1 5/21/2014 5/21/2014 0 g. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 2 submitted 5/23/2014 5/23/2014 0 h. Scoping Meeting 2 Dry Run 5/28/2014 5/28/2014 0 i. Scoping Meeting 2 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 0 j. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 3 submitted 6/6/2014 6/6/2014 0 k. Scoping Meeting 3 Dry Run 6/11/2014 6/11/2014 0 l. Scoping Meeting 3 6/18/2014 6/18/2014 0 3 Companion Outreach (Surveys, Webinars, Open Town Hall Consultation) 3/10/2014 6/15/2014 97 a. Draft memo on companion outreach strategies and schedule 3/10/2014 3/31/2014 21 b. Staff review 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 0 c. Finalize memo 4/1/2014 4/8/2014 7 d. Book webinar presenters 4/2/2014 5/2/2014 30 e. Webinar 1 5/22/2014 5/22/2014 0 f. Webinar 2 5/27/2014 5/27/2014 0 g. Draft materials for Open Town Hall Consultation 3/10/2014 5/7/2014 58 h. Staff review 5/8/2014 5/9/2014 1 i. Revise and launch Open Town Hall Consultation 5/12/2014 5/14/2014 2 j. PTC Hearing on Alternative Scenarios 6/11/2014 6/11/2014 0 k. Open Town Hall Consultation 5/14/2014 6/15/2014 32 4 Alternative Scenario Definition 6/15/2014 8/8/2014 54 a. Draft memo summarizing public input 6/15/2014 6/25/2014 10 b. Staff review 6/28/2014 7/5/2014 7 c. Council packet out 7/28/2014 7/28/2014 0 2014 2015 pr un ul ug ep c Ma A Ma J J A S O No De a eb pr un ul ug ep c J F Ma A Ma J J A S O No De n eb a. Prepare memo summarizing CPA edits made in response to public comments 9/7/2015 9/10/2015 3 b. Staff review of memo 9/11/2015 9/14/2015 3 c. Prepare Final CPA Document 9/15/2015 9/29/2015 14 d. Staff review of Final CPA Document 9/30/2015 10/7/2015 7 e. CPA printed and posted to website 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 0 Prepare User Guide 11/16/2015 2/1/2016 77 a. Prepare admin draft User Guide 11/17/2015 12/17/2015 30 b. Staff review of admin draft User Guide 12/18/2015 1/8/2016 21 c. Screencheck preparation 1/11/2016 1/25/2016 14 d. Final User Guide public release 2/1/2016 2/1/2016 0 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR Scope Refinement Draft Schedule February 21, 2014 2014 2015 2016 TASK Start Finish Duration d. City Council Hearing on Alternative Scenarios 8/4/2014 8/4/2014 0 e. Finalize buildout calculation (two scenarios) 8/5/2014 8/8/2014 3 TASK C: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION 1 Prepare DEIR with Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios 8/8/2014 12/15/2014 129 a. Technical modeling 8/8/2014 11/3/2014 87 b. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report Submitted to City 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 0 c. Staff review of TIA 10/17/2014 10/24/2014 7 d. Admin Draft EIR preparation 3/10/2014 11/10/2014 245 e. Staff review of ADEIR 11/10/2014 11/24/2014 14 f. Screencheck preparation 11/24/2014 12/14/2014 20 h. Public Review DEIR released 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 2 Draft Comp Plan Amendment Policy Document 8/5/2014 4/14/2015 252 a. Prepare admin Draft CPA Policy Document (80% working draft) 8/5/2014 9/12/2014 38 b. Staff review 9/15/2014 9/29/2014 14 c. Finalize Draft CPA Policy Document 9/30/2014 10/14/2014 14 d. Public release of Draft CPA Policy Document 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 e. Public review period (Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR) 12/15/2014 4/14/2015 120 f. Community meeting 2/18/2015 2/18/2015 0 h. City Council Hearing 3/18/2015 3/18/2015 0 i. Prepare and submit meeting summaries 3/19/2015 4/2/2015 14 3 Open Town Hall Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Policy Document 10/14/2014 4/14/2015 182 a. Draft online consultation framework 10/14/2014 10/21/2014 7 b. Staff review 10/22/2014 10/29/2014 7 c. Go live (with Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR Chapters) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 d. Prepare and submit summary of online input 4/14/2015 4/28/2015 14 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4/15/2015 9/6/2015 144 a. Prepare Admin Draft CPA (full elements with narratives, photos, graphs) 4/15/2015 5/30/2015 45 b. Staff review 5/31/2015 6/21/2015 21 c. Screencheck Draft CPA 6/22/2015 7/2/2015 10 d. Public Review CPA released 7/9/2015 7/9/2015 0 e. Public comment period on CPA 7/9/2015 9/6/2015 59 5 Final EIR 4/15/2015 8/27/2015 134 a. Admin Draft FEIR (with Response to Comments and MMRP) 4/15/2015 7/4/2015 80 b. Staff review 7/5/2015 8/4/2015 30 c. Screencheck FEIR 8/5/2015 8/26/2015 21 d. Publish FEIR 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 0 6 Adoption and Certification: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR 8/27/2015 11/16/2015 68 a. PTC Hearing 10/28/2015 10/28/2015 0 b. City Council Hearing 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 0 TASK D: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FINALIZATION 1 Publish Comprehensive Plan Amendment Document 9/7/2015 10/14/2015 37 2 The Planning Center | DC&E City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment Scope Refinement Cost Estimate The Planning Center | DC&E Hexagon TRA Hours per Task Principal Associate Principal Senior Scientists Associate Project Planner Graphics/ WP Principal Associate Engineer Graphics / Tech. Project Manager Biologists Labor Cost per Task A. Start Up 102 192 60 324 216 154 34 24 38 92 12 48 179,260 1. City Council Approval of Scope, Schedule and Budget 4 4 4 4 4 3,200 2. Project Management and Coordination with Our Palo Alto Team 64 104 4 148 40 30 59,480 3. Prepare Existing Conditions Info and Baseline Data 16 48 48 92 108 24 34 24 38 92 8 44 77,240 4. Prepare "Our Plan So Far" and NOP 10 16 8 48 48 40 21,740 5. Reorganize Website 8 20 32 20 60 17,600 B. Scoping and Alternatives Development 88 236 - 434 588 288 48 40 - 8 - - 225,270 1. Invitation to the Community 8 24 32 24 24 15,120 2. Scoping Meetings (Five, including one PTC and one Council) 36 104 180 240 96 48 40 8 101,220 3. Companion Outreach (Surveys, Webinars, Open Town Hall) 20 52 120 184 72 56,020 4. Alternative Scenario Definition and CPA Prospectus 24 56 102 140 96 52,910 C. Alternatives Evaluation and Selection 82 276 272 560 809 202 112 68 76 124 56 140 372,685 1. Prepare DEIR with Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios 30 132 192 240 365 74 80 40 60 110 40 108 200,015 2. Draft CPA Prospectus Preparation and Public Review 12 24 32 40 8 16 16 6 22,210 3. Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Scenarios 8 24 60 96 24 26,460 4. Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 44 104 164 56 16 32 52,640 5. Final EIR 16 36 80 88 120 32 16 12 16 8 58,700 6. EIR Certification 8 16 36 24 8 12,660 D. Comp. Plan Amendment Finalization 16 24 -60 76 40 ---- - - 27,640 1. Final Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 12 24 12 8 9,080 2. Draft User Guide 8 12 36 64 32 18,560 Total Hours per Team Member 288 728 332 1,378 1,689 684 194 132 114 224 68 188 Billing Rate $210 $175 $165 $135 $105 $100 $200 $150 $150 $95 $160 $120 Labor Cost $60,480 $127,400 $54,780 $186,030 $177,345 $68,400 $38,800 $19,800 $17,100 $21,280 $10,880 $22,560 Total Labor Cost per Firm $674,435 $96,980 $33,440 Total Labor Cost $804,855 Total Hours 6,019 EXPENSES Travel (@ $0.565 per mile) $2,500 $144 Per diem travel expenses (5@ $80 per night) $400 Reprographics and Mapping $5,000 Blueprints and Plots $1,400 Deliveries $100 Subconsultant Administration (10%) $13,679 Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) $13,489 Online Engagement $31,200 Traffic Counts; Design & Geometrics Data Collection $6,225 Total Expenses per Firm $67,768 $6,369 $0 Total Cost per Firm $742,203 $103,349 $33,440 GRAND TOTAL $878,992 REMAINING BUDGET $265,859 CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1 CONTINGENCY $15,927 ADDITIONAL BUDGET REQUIRED $597,206 2/18/2014 ATTACHMENT C - AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C08125506 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C08125506 (“Contract”) is entered into on the 3rd day of March, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation(“CITY”), and DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT, INC., a California corporation, located 1625 Shattuck Avenue. Suite 300, Berkeley, CA. 94709, Telephone (510)848- 3815 (CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, City retained Consultant to assist in updating the Comprehensive Plan and conduct an EIR for the Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the City intends to extend the contract term to June 30, 2016 WHEREAS, the City also desires to increase the compensation from a total not to exceed of $1,140,000.00, by $597,206.00, to a new total not to exceed of $1,737,206.00 and to increase the scope of services to include CITY Council approval of the scope of work, schedule & budget, the development of Draft Environmental Impact Report alternatives and Comprehensive Plan Amendment scenarios through eliciting public input through several outreach measures such as scoping meetings, surveys, and webinars and will enable the simultaneous preparation and public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the draft goals, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as specified in EXHIBIT “A2” Additional Scope of Work. WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this agreement” SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1” & “A2”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Million Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Six Dollars ($1,737,206.00). The applicable 1 Revision July 25, 2012 rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit 'tC3 ",entitled HRA TE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement." ~ECTION 3. The following exhibit( s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment} which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit "A2» entitled "ADDITONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES". b. Exhibit "C" entitled ''COMPENSATION". c. Exhibit "C3" entitled "RATE SCHEDULE, SJ;:CTION 4. Except as herein. modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ClTY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT" A2": EXHIBIT "C'': ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES COMPENSATION EXHIBIT "C3'' RAlE SCHEDULE 2 Revision July 25. 2012 EXHIBIT A2 ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK TASK A: PROJECT STARTUP Task A will include City Council approval of the scope of work, schedule and budget. In addition, CONSULTANT shall perform the following tasks: Kick-Off Meeting with CITY Staff and Our Palo Alto Team The CONSULTANT shall attend one (1) kick-off meeting with CITY Staff and Our Palo Alto Team. Preparation of Existing Setting and Baseline Date Reports The CONSULTANT shall prepare existing setting and baseline data reports, including traffic counts and other existing setting data, in the format of EIR existing setting sections. The reports shall be submitted as administrative drafts to CITY for review. Upon review from CITY Staff, the CONSULTANT shall prepare screencheck drafts for a second round of CITY review and CONSULTANT revision, followed by the public release of each of the existing setting reports. Preparation of “Our Plan So Far” (OPSF) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) The CONSULTANT shall prepare buildout calculations of the existing General Plan land use map, based on data provided by CITY, and prepare and submit an administrative draft of the OPSF to CITY for review. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) for CITY review. Upon CITY review, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a screencheck of the OPSF, followed by the release of OPSF and the NOP. Website Re-Organization The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft webstructure for CITY Staff review, followed by the website design incorporating comments and suggestions from CITY Staff. Upon completion of the website design, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a presentation of the draft website for critique. The CONSULTANT shall revise the draft website and prepare the website to go live. TASK B: SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Task B will include the development of Draft Environmental Impact Report alternatives and Comprehensive Plan Amendment scenarios through eliciting public input through several outreach measures such as scoping meetings, surveys, and webinars. The CONSULTANT shall perform the following the tasks: 3 Revision July 25, 2012 Invitation to the Community The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft invitation to the community for CITY Staff review. Upon completion of CITY review, the CONSULTANT shall release to the public the invitation, OPSF, and NOP. Scoping Meetings The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft memo describing the format and content of scoping meetings which will include a meeting to review the format and content of the scoping meetings. Upon review, the CONSULTANT shall revise the draft memo accordingly. The CONSULTANT shall facilitate up to three (3) scoping meetings, potentially at different locations throughout Palo Alto, each of which include the preparation and submittal of draft materials for each scoping meeting and a dry run prior to each scoping meeting. Companion Outreach The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft memo detailing companion outreach strategies and schedule for CITY Staff review. The companion outreach strategies will include surveys, webinars, and Open Town Hall consultation. Upon completion of CITY’s review, the CONSULTANT shall finalize the memo. Following the finalization of outreach strategies, the CONSULTANT shall book webinar presenters and hold two (2) webinars. Following the completion of the webinars, the CONSULTANT shall prepare, and submit for CITY review, draft materials for Open Town Hall consultation. The CONSULTANT shall then revise the draft materials and launch the Open Town Hall consultation. The CONSULTANT will attend a PTC hearing to discuss alternative scenarios and facilitate an Open Town Hall consultation. Alternative Scenario Definition The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft memo for CITY review summarizing public input gathered from the Open Town Hall consultation. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a CITY Council packet prior to attending a CITY Council hearing discussing alternative scenarios. CITY Council hearing will be intended to provide refinements to and direction on two alternative scenarios to be analyzed in the Draft EIR alongside Our Plan So Far. Following CITY Council hearing, the CONSULTANT shall finalize buildout calculations on the two alternative scenarios selected by CITY Council. TASK C: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION Task C enables the simultaneous preparation and public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the draft goals, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The CONSULTANT shall perform the following tasks: 4 Revision July 25, 2012 Prepare DEIR with Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios The CONSULTANT shall prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (DEIR) for CITY review, followed by a screencheck version of the DEIR. Upon completion of the screencheck, the CONSULTANT shall release a public review DEIR. Transportation Analyses The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will include traffic modeling, to CITY for review. Data Collection o Multimodal roadway data, 2 streets (Detailed input requirements for automobile and non-automobile modes are presented in attached tables). o Turn Movements at 10 intersections, AM and PM. o Tube counts on 13 roadway segments, 24-hour counts. Multimodal level of service. Two (2) locations: Park Boulevard and University Avenue. Intersection LOS. Ten (10) Locations: 1. I-280 NB ramps and Sand Hill Road, 2. Middlefield Road and Charleston Road, 3. Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, 4. Alma Street and Charleston Road, 5. El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, 6. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway, 7. El Camino Real and Arastradero Road /Charleston Road, 8. El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, 9. Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road, and 10. Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road Roadway Segment Daily LOS. Thirteen (13) Locations: 1. Sand Hill Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 2. University Avenue between El Camino Real and Route 101, 3. Page Mill Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 4. Arastradero Road between I-280 and El Camino Real, 5. Oregon Expressway between El Camino Real and Route 101, 6. Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Route 101, 7. Charleston Road between El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, 8. San Antonio Road between El Camino Real and Route 101, 9. Middlefield Road between University Avenue and San Antonio Road, 10. Alma Street between University Avenue and San Antonio Road, 11. El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Page Mill Road, 12. El Camino Real between Page Mill Road and San Antonio Road, and 5 Revision July 25, 2012 13. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway between Sand Hill Road and Arastradero Road. Scenarios. Multimodal LOS, Intersection LOS, and Roadway Segment LOS apply to the following scenarios: o Existing, o Baseline, o Our Plan So Far (Alternative 1), o Alternative 2, and o Alternative 3. Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy Document Preparation and Public Review The CONSULTANT shall prepare an admin draft CPA Policy Document for CITY review, followed by the finalization and public release of the Draft CPA Policy Document concurrent with the release of the DEIR for the public review period. The CPA Policy Document will include all goals, policies, and programs but would not include background text or final graphics. The CONSULTANT shall also facilitate one (1) community meeting, as well as attend a CITY Council hearing, to receive comments on the Draft CPA, and prepare and submit meeting summaries. Open Town Hall Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Policy Document The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft framework for the online consultation for CITY review. Upon CITY review, the CONSULTANT shall go live with the online consultation with the Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR chapters, followed by preparing and submitting a summary of online input garnered from the online consultation. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The CONSULTANT shall prepare an Administrative Draft CPA to build upon the CPA Policy document by adding full elements with narratives, photos, and graphs for CITY review. In addition, the CPA will reflect the Preferred Land Use Alternative identified by the Council during the public review of the Draft EIR and Draft CPA Policy Document. Upon completion of CITY review, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a screencheck Draft CPA, followed by the completion and release of a Public Review CPA. At the time of the public release, a 60-day public comment period on the CPA would be open. Final EIR After the close of the public review period of the Draft EIR, the CONSULTANT shall prepare an admin Draft FEIR, including responding to comments and preparing a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), for CITY review. Upon completion of CITY review, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a screencheck FEIR, followed by circulating the FEIR. Adoption and Certification: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Final EIR 6 Revision July 25, 2012 The CONSULTANT shall attend one (1) PTC Hearing and one (1) CITY Council Hearing to certify the EIR and adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. TASK D: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINALIZATION Task D includes the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the preparation of the User Guide. Task D includes the following tasks to be performed by the CONSULTANT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Document The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a draft memo for CITY review summarizing CPA edits made in response to public comments. Based on staff review and revision, the CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a Final CPA for CITY review, followed by the printing and posting of the Final CPA to the website. The Final CPA will be prepared and published at least two weeks before the PTC hearing to recommend certification of the EIR and adoption of the CPA. Prepare User Guide The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit an admin draft User Guide for CITY review, followed by the preparation of a screencheck. Upon completion of reviewing the screencheck, the User Guide shall be released to the public. 7 Revision July 25, 2012 201620142015 Jan Feb Ju n Ju l Au g Sep OctMa r Ap r Ma y No v De cMa r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Sep Oct No v De c Jan Feb ATTACHMENT "A2 " ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK" - Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR Scope Refinement Draft Schedule February 21, 2014 20162014 2015 Start Finish Duration TASK A: START UP Jan Feb Ju n Ju l Au g Sep OctMa r Ap r Ma y No v De c TASK Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Sep Oct No v De c Jan Feb 1 City Council Approval of Scope, Schedule and Budget 3/4/2014 3/4/2014 0 2 Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff and Our Palo Alto Team 3/7/2014 3/7/2014 0 3 Preparation of existing setting and baseline data reports 3/10/2014 5/14/2014 65 a. Traffic counts taken 3/10/2014 4/7/2014 28 b. Admin Draft report on traffic and parking submitted to City 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 0 c. Staff review 5/1/2014 5/7/2014 6 d. Other Admin Draft reports preparation 3/10/2014 4/30/2014 51 e. Staff review 4/30/2014 5/7/2014 7 f. Screencheck Drafts preparation 5/7/2014 5/12/2014 5 g. Public release of existing setting reports 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 4 Preparation of "Our Plan So Far" (OPSF) and NOP 3/10/2014 4/24/2014 45 a. Buildout calculation 3/10/2014 4/7/2014 28 b. Admin Draft OPSF preparation 3/10/2014 4/9/2014 30 c. Staff Review of Admin Draft 4/10/2014 4/17/2014 7 d. Prepare Draft NOP 4/7/2014 4/11/2014 4 e. Staff Review of Draft NOP 4/11/2014 4/17/2014 6 f. Screencheck OPSF preparation 4/17/2014 4/24/2014 7 g. Public release of OPSF and NOP (see Task B.1.c) 5 Website Re-organization 3/10/2014 4/25/2014 46 a. Prepare Draft Webstructure 3/10/2014 3/24/2014 14 b. Staff Review 3/24/2014 3/31/2014 7 c. Website Design 4/1/2014 4/15/2014 14 d. Draft Website Presentation and Critique (telecon) 4/15/2014 4/15/2014 0 e. Revise and go live 4/16/2014 4/25/2014 9 TASK B: SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 1 Invitation to the Community 3/10/2014 5/14/2014 65 a. Draft Invitation Preparation 4/23/2014 4/30/2014 7 b. Staff Review 4/30/2014 5/7/2014 7 c. Public Release of Invitation, OPSF, and NOP 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 2 Scoping Meetings 3/10/2014 6/18/2014 100 a. Draft Memo on scoping meeting format and content 3/10/2014 3/31/2014 21 b. Meeting to review memo 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 0 c. Revised memo submitted 4/8/2014 4/8/2014 7 d. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 1 submitted 5/7/2014 5/7/2014 0 e. Scoping Meeting 1 Dry Run 5/14/2014 5/14/2014 0 f. Scoping Meeting 1 5/21/2014 5/21/2014 0 g. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 2 submitted 5/23/2014 5/23/2014 0 h. Scoping Meeting 2 Dry Run 5/28/2014 5/28/2014 0 i. Scoping Meeting 2 6/4/2014 6/4/2014 0 j. Draft materials for Scoping Meeting 3 submitted 6/6/2014 6/6/2014 0 k. Scoping Meeting 3 Dry Run 6/11/2014 6/11/2014 0 l. Scoping Meeting 3 6/18/2014 6/18/2014 0 3 Companion Outreach (Surveys, Webinars, Open Town Hall Consultation) 3/10/2014 6/15/2014 97 a. Draft memo on companion outreach strategies and schedule 3/10/2014 3/31/2014 21 b. Staff review 4/1/2014 4/1/2014 0 c. Finalize memo 4/1/2014 4/8/2014 7 d. Book webinar presenters 4/2/2014 5/2/2014 30 e. Webinar 1 5/22/2014 5/22/2014 0 f. Webinar 2 5/27/2014 5/27/2014 0 g. Draft materials for Open Town Hall Consultation 3/10/2014 5/7/2014 58 h. Staff review 5/8/2014 5/9/2014 1 i. Revise and launch Open Town Hall Consultation 5/12/2014 5/14/2014 2 j. PTC Hearing on Alternative Scenarios 6/11/2014 6/11/2014 0 k. Open Town Hall Consultation 5/14/2014 6/15/2014 32 4 Alternative Scenario Definition 6/15/2014 8/8/2014 54 a. Draft memo summarizing public input 6/15/2014 6/25/2014 10 b. Staff review 6/28/2014 7/5/2014 7 c. Council packet out 7/28/2014 7/28/2014 0 201620142015 Ja FJJASOAAJJASOJaF TASK C: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION ATTACHMENT "A2 " ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK" - Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR Scope Refinement Draft Schedule February 21, 2014 2016 n ebunulugepctMa r pr Ma y No v De c 2014 2015 Ma r pr Ma y un ul ug ep ct No v De c n eb Start Finish Duration Jan Feb Ju n Ju l Au g Sep OctMa r Ap r Ma y No v De c TASK Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Sep Oct No v De c Jan Feb d. City Council Hearing on Alternative Scenarios 8/4/2014 8/4/2014 0 e. Finalize buildout calculation (two scenarios) 8/5/2014 8/8/2014 3 1 Prepare DEIR with Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios 8/8/2014 12/15/2014 129 a. Technical modeling 8/8/2014 11/3/2014 87 b. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report Submitted to City 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 0 c. Staff review of TIA 10/17/2014 10/24/2014 7 d. Admin Draft EIR preparation 3/10/2014 11/10/2014 245 e. Staff review of ADEIR 11/10/2014 11/24/2014 14 f. Screencheck preparation 11/24/2014 12/14/2014 20 h. Public Review DEIR released 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 2 Draft Comp Plan Amendment Policy Document 8/5/2014 4/14/2015 252 a. Prepare admin Draft CPA Policy Document (80% working draft) 8/5/2014 9/12/2014 38 b. Staff review 9/15/2014 9/29/2014 14 c. Finalize Draft CPA Policy Document 9/30/2014 10/14/2014 14 d. Public release of Draft CPA Policy Document 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 e. Public review period (Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR) 12/15/2014 4/14/2015 120 f. Community meeting 2/18/2015 2/18/2015 0 h. City Council Hearing 3/18/2015 3/18/2015 0 i. Prepare and submit meeting summaries 3/19/2015 4/2/2015 14 3 Open Town Hall Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Policy Document 10/14/2014 4/14/2015 182 a. Draft online consultation framework 10/14/2014 10/21/2014 7 b. Staff review 10/22/2014 10/29/2014 7 c. Go live (with Draft CPA Policy Document and DEIR Chapters) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 0 d. Prepare and submit summary of online input 4/14/2015 4/28/2015 14 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4/15/2015 9/6/2015 144 a. Prepare Admin Draft CPA (full elements with narratives, photos, graphs) 4/15/2015 5/30/2015 45 b. Staff review 5/31/2015 6/21/2015 21 c. Screencheck Draft CPA 6/22/2015 7/2/2015 10 d. Public Review CPA released 7/9/2015 7/9/2015 0 e. Public comment period on CPA 7/9/2015 9/6/2015 59 5 Final EIR 4/15/2015 8/27/2015 134 a. Admin Draft FEIR (with Response to Comments and MMRP) 4/15/2015 7/4/2015 80 b. Staff review 7/5/2015 8/4/2015 30 c. Screencheck FEIR 8/5/2015 8/26/2015 21 d. Publish FEIR 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 0 6 Adoption and Certification: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and EIR 8/27/2015 11/16/2015 68 a. PTC Hearing 10/28/2015 10/28/2015 0 b. City Council Hearing 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 0 TASK D: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FINALIZATION 1 Publish Comprehensive Plan Amendment Document 9/7/2015 10/14/2015 37 a. Prepare memo summarizing CPA edits made in response to public comments 9/7/2015 9/10/2015 3 b. Staff review of memo 9/11/2015 9/14/2015 3 c. Prepare Final CPA Document 9/15/2015 9/29/2015 14 d. Staff review of Final CPA Document 9/30/2015 10/7/2015 7 e. CPA printed and posted to website 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 0 2 Prepare User Guide 11/16/2015 2/1/2016 77 a. Prepare admin draft User Guide 11/17/2015 12/17/2015 30 b. Staff review of admin draft User Guide 12/18/2015 1/8/2016 21 c. Screencheck preparation 1/11/2016 1/25/2016 14 d. Final User Guide public release 2/1/2016 2/1/2016 0 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-3. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1” & “A2” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $1,737,206.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-3. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 8 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C3” RATE SCHEDULE STAFF LEVEL HOURLY BILL RATE Principal $180–$250 Associate Principal $160–$190 Senior Associate/Senior Scientist $130–$170 Associate/Scientist $100–$140 Project Planner/Project Scientist $80–$110 Planner/Assistant Scientist $70–$90 Graphics Specialist $65–$90 Clerical/Word Processing $40–$105 Intern $50–$70 Subconsultants are billed at cost plus 10%. Mileage reimbursement rate is the standard IRS-approved rate. 9 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT "C-3" RATE SCHEDULE The Planning Center | DC&E Hexagon TRA Hours per Task Principal Associate Principal Senior Scientists Associate Project Planner Graphics/ WP Principal Associate Engineer Graphics / Tech. Project Manager Biologists Labor Cost per Task A. Start Up 1. City Council Approval of Scope, Schedule and Budget 2. Project Management and Coordination with Our Palo Alto Team 3. Prepare Existing Conditions Info and Baseline Data 4. Prepare "Our Plan So Far" and NOP 5. Reorganize Website 102 4 64 16 10 8 192 4 104 48 16 20 60 4 48 8 324 4 148 92 48 32 216 40 108 48 20 154 30 24 40 60 34 34 24 24 38 38 92 92 12 4 8 48 4 44 179,260 3,200 59,480 77,240 21,740 17,600 B. Scoping and Alternatives Development 1. Invita ion to the Community 2. Scoping Meetings (Five, including one PTC and one Council) 3. Companion Outreach (Surveys, Webinars, Open Town Hall) 4. Alternative Scenario Definition and CPA Prospectus 88 8 36 20 24 236 24 104 52 56 -434 32 180 120 102 588 24 240 184 140 288 24 96 72 96 48 48 40 40 -8 8 --225,270 15,120 101,220 56,020 52,910 C. Alternatives Evaluation and Selection 1. Prepare DEIR wi h Quantified Analysis for all CPA Scenarios 2. Draft CPA Prospectus Prepara ion and Public Review 3. Online Consultation on DEIR and CPA Scenarios 4. Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5. Final EIR 6. EIR Certification 82 30 12 8 8 16 8 276 132 24 24 44 36 16 272 192 80 560 240 32 60 104 88 36 809 365 40 96 164 120 24 202 74 8 24 56 32 8 112 80 16 16 68 40 16 12 76 60 16 124 110 6 8 56 40 16 140 108 32 372,685 200,015 22,210 26,460 52,640 58,700 12,660 D. Comp. Plan Amendment Finalization 1. Final Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Draft User Guide 16 8 8 24 12 12 -60 24 36 76 12 64 40 8 32 ------27,640 9,080 18,560 Total Hours per Team Member Billing Rate Labor Cost 288 $210 $60,480 728 $175 $127,400 332 $165 $54,780 1,378 $135 $186,030 1,689 $105 $177,345 684 $100 $68,400 194 $200 $38,800 132 $150 $19,800 114 $150 $17,100 224 $95 $21,280 68 $160 $10,880 188 $120 $22,560 Total Labor Cost per Firm Total Labor Cost Total Hours 6,019 $674,435 $96,980 $33,440 $804,855 EXPENSES Travel (@ $0.565 per mile) Per diem travel expenses (5@ $80 per night) Reprographics and Mapping Blueprints and Plots Deliveries Subconsultant Administration (10%) Office Expenses (Phone, Fax, Copies, etc. @ 2% of Labor) Online Engagement Traffic Counts; Design & Geometrics Data Collection $2,500 $400 $5,000 $1,400 $100 $13,679 $13,489 $31,200 $144 $6,225 Total Expenses per Firm $67,768 $6,369 $0 Total Cost per Firm $742,203 $103,349 $33,440 GRAND TOTAL REMAINING BUDGET CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1 CONTINGENCY $878,992 $265,859 $15,927 ADDITIONAL BUDGET REQUIRED $597,206 2/18/2014 ATTACHMENT D 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 $200,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT. 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. The City Council initiated a Comprehensive Plan Update in 2006 to focus on preservation on commercial land uses, preservation of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporate sustainability concepts, and update the housing element and prepare concept area plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue/Fry’s areas. Between 2008 and 2010, City staff reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan elements with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), prepared background reports on baseline growth topics, and developed preliminary information regarding concept area plans; and C. In 2010 the City Council provided direction regarding updated growth projections, updates to the Comp Plan structure, vision, goals, policies and program statements, and additional work regarding review of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND); and D. The PTC subsequently completed an initial review of the Comprehensive Plan vision statements, goals, policies and programs for each Comp Plan element, identifying substantive changes and revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and focusing on text edits and minor wording adjustments. The PTC then formed subcommittees consisting of two to three commissioners and City staff from the Planning Division as well as staff from other City departments to complete their reviews and recommendations, most of which are now complete; and E. The work of each PTC subcommittee has been supported by The Planning Center |DCE, the City’s consultant for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Work performed by DCE included preliminary reviews of each existing Comprehensive Plan element, suggestions for revisions to modernize and improve the elements based upon current general plan/comprehensive plan standards, and recommendation for the addition of sustainability policies and program concepts that would be appropriate for each element; and F. On June 24, 2013, Council approved Contract Amendment Number 1, which included additional work on the California Avenue Concept Plan, creation of an implementation matrix, preparation of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model, preparation of a future year traffic demand scenario for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, preparation of 2020 greenhouse gas modeling, and administration and maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment website; and G. At the December 2, 2014 City Council meeting, staff presented a report which provided a background of the 1998 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that Council discuss the initiation of an expanded public dialogue regarding the future of the city, including ongoing efforts to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan, re-examination of Planned Community (PC) district zoning, and other land use and development issues. Direction was given staff to return with specific recommendations for Council consideration and adoption. On February 3, 2014, the City Council endorsed a framework and directed staff to return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work; and H. Staff is currently recommending an approach to the project that would include expanded community engagement and concurrent planning and environmental review of multiple alternatives with an end date of December 2015. SECTION 2. The sum of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars is hereby appropriated for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project, which includes a reserve for unanticipated expenses in the amount of Fifty 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 Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 4580) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 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 (Continued from March 3, 2014) 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 # 4549) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of MOA for Classified Employees – SEIU Title: Adoption of Resolution Approving a New Memorandum of Agreement with Service Employees' International Union Local 521 and Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution approving a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU), Local 521 effective December 1, 2013 through December 1, 2015 and concomitantly amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations. Background Since 2009, the City has negotiated with all bargaining units to make permanent, on-going structural changes to employee compensation and address issues stemming from significant growth in the costs of medical and pension benefit plans. Between 2009 and 2012, the City negotiated important cost sharing programs which required employees to contributes to medical and pension plans. In 2012, the Council adopted nine guiding principles for labor negotiations, with the goal of establishing clear goals to help maintain and support stronger relationships between the City and its various labor groups. Key guiding principles include: Establishing levels of compensation that support the City’s long term ability to continue providing services important to the public; City of Palo Alto Page 2 Considering the total costs of positions, including salary, pension and all other benefits in making compensation decisions; Setting compensation at levels sufficient to recruit and retain qualified employees when economically feasible; and Moving away from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases. The City’s negotiations team approached bargaining with SEIU with these principles in mind, and this contract furthers many of those goals. SEIU is the City’s largest bargaining unit, with approximately 580 budgeted full-time positions that support all major City services, including Utilities, Libraries, Public Works, Public Safety, and a wide range of administrative functions. The current contract expired on December 1, 2013. The parties met formally more than one dozen times between September 2013 and February 2014. The City declared impasse on January 7, 2014. However, the parties continued to talk and reached a tentative agreement on February 27, 2014. The Union voted to ratify the tentative agreement on March 4, 2014. Discussion The tentative agreement between the City and SEIU is consistent with several of the Labor Guiding Principles. The following summaries describe the key changes: 1. Fixed City Contributions Toward Medical Premiums Beginning in 2010, employees began paying a portion of health care costs, and currently contribute 10% of premium amounts, with the City contribution capped at 90% of the second highest medical plan offered by CalPERS. Although this change was an improvement over the City paying the full cost of the benefit, contribution amounts were still based on a percentage of the total premium cost, which has increased every year, so the structure did not fully meet the Council’s goal of moving away from benefit structures that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases. Under this contract, the City’s contributions will be fixed at the following dollar amounts per month rather than a changing percentage: 2014 Maximum City Contribution 2015 Maximum City Contribution Employee only $688 Employee only $708 Employee +1 $1375 Employee +1 $1375 Employee+Family $1788 Employee+Family $1840 City of Palo Alto Page 3 This fixed amount approach eliminates the City’s obligation to automatically pay the cost of premium increases. Going forward, SEIU will be required to negotiate any changes to the fixed amounts. This method also encourages employees to become better consumers, choosing the health care plan that provides the best value for their needs. 2. Market Adjustments for Positions Under Market At the beginning of negotiations, the City completed a total compensation study that evaluated the total packages of salary, other cash benefits, insurance, and the normal cost of retiree medical for Palo Alto employees in comparison to similar positions in twelve comparable Bay Area agencies. A total of 89 job classifications representing approximately 320 employees were identified as under-market in the study, and will receive increases to bring them to the market average in the first pay period following adoption of the MOA. The market adjustments range from modest increases of less than 2% to more significant increases up to 10% in a few cases. In addition, two positions, Utility System Operator and Water Quality Control Plant Maintenance Mechanic, will receive targeted adjustments to help address significant, recent difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified employees in those positions. The salary schedule also includes changes to the Electrician classification agreed to as a result of an employee-initiated reclassification request that was completed concurrent with negotiations. The City supported that request because today’s technology requires more specialized skill and updated job requirements will allow the City to better recruit and retain hard to fill important operational positions such as the SCADA Technologist and Substation Electrician. Especially as the economy improves, employees may have more opportunities in both the public and private sectors. Ensuring that the City’s total compensation packages are consistent with comparable agencies in this market is a very important factor in retaining and attracting quality employees. 3. Cost of Living Increases Cost of living increases were a key concern for SEIU in the negotiations. SEIU employees have not received a unit-wide increase since 2008despite paying increased contributions for medical and pension costs. Under this agreement, all employees in the unit will receive a 2% increase City of Palo Alto Page 4 effective the next period after City Council approval of the contract and a 2.5% increase starting December 1, 2014, the beginning of the second year of the contract. 4. Standby Pay Increase In some public service departments such as Utilities and Public Works, a limited number of employees may be paid to stand by to respond to calls during their non-working hours, weekends, and holidays. The level of standby pay has not been increased in approximately 10 years, and will increase under this agreement from $50 to $70 per weekday and from $73 to $100 per Saturday, Sunday and holiday. 5. Other Changes for Efficiency and Clean-Up Additional, minor language changes relate to efficiency and cleaning up old language, including: Updating language to require SEIU to access Council agenda materials through the City’s website rather than picking up hard copies from the City Clerk Specifying that employees who do not use direct deposit shall pick up their paychecks at a time and place designated by payroll Updated language to reflect the new pension tier requirements of the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act Language cleanups to align performance evaluations and step increases with the one-year probationary period that was changed from 6 months in the last contract Cleanups to streamline administration of optional benefits and better explain existing practices Resource Impact The incremental cost of this package (over current costs for SEIU) over the two year term is approximately $4.4 million. This represents approximately 6.3% of budgeted total compensation (salary and benefits) for SEIU. The total cumulative cost over the two year term of the agreement is approximately $7.6 million. Approximately 36% of these costs is attributable to the general fund. Any salary and benefit cost changes due to this agreement will be incorporated in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget scheduled for release to the City Council on May 5, 2014. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Policy Implications This contract is consistent with and will further many of the goals identified by the City Council in the City’s Labor Guiding Principles. Environmental Review Approval of a contract with SEIU affecting the wages, hours and working conditions of City employees is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Redline SEIU MOA 2013-15 (PDF) Clean SEIU MOA 2013-15 (PDF) Appendix A-1 to SEIU MOA 2013-15 (PDF) Appendix A-2 to SEIU MOA- 2014-15 Salary Schedules Final (PDF) RESO APPROVING SEIU MOA (PDF) City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 1 of 68 2012-20132013-2015 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT City of Palo Alto and Local 521, SEIU, CTW PREAMBLE – This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter “MOA” is entered into by the City of Palo Alto (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Local 521 Service Employees International Union, CTW (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”). For the purposes of this MOA “employee” shall mean an employee assigned to a classification within the SEIU General Employee bargaining unit. This MOA is pursuant and subject to Sections 3500-3510 of the Government Code of the State of California and Chapter 12 of the City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE I – RECOGNITION Section 1 - Recognition. Pursuant to Sections 3500 - 3510 of the Government Code of the State of California and Chapter 12 of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative of a representation unit consisting of all regular full and part-time employees in the classifications listed in Appendix A attached hereto. This unit, shall for purposes of identification, be titled the SEIU General Employees bargaining unit (hereinafter “General Unit”). Section 2 - Protection of Unit. No supervisor will perform the work of an employee in the General Unit provided that there is an employee available who regularly performs such work. This does not preclude a supervisor from performing work of a minor nature or during bona fide emergencies or on a standby status when willing and qualified unit employees do not live within a reasonable response time of their work location. Supervisory personnel shall be called out to perform unscheduled work only when SEIU General unit employees are unavailable to perform such work or in cases of bona fide emergencies as defined in Article VIII, Section 2. In cases of bona fide emergencies, SEIU General Unit employees shall be called out to complete the necessary work after the immediate emergency situation has been reasonably contained. ARTICLE II - NO DISCRIMINATION Section 1 - Discrimination. The City and Union agree that no person employed by or applying for employment hereto shall be discriminated against because of race, religion, creed, political affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, union activity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 68 Section 2 - Right to Join the Union. The City and the Union agree to protect the rights of all employees to exercise their free choice to join the Union and to abide by the express provisions of applicable State and local laws. ARTICLE III - UNION SECURITY Section 1 - Notice. When a person is hired in any of the covered job classifications, the City shall notify that person that the Union is the recognized bargaining representative for the employee and give the employee a current copy of the Memorandum of Agreement. When a group employee orientation is held for new employees of the bargaining unit, a union representative may make a presentation to such bargaining unit employees for the purpose of explaining matters of representation. The presentation shall not exceed 15 minutes. Section 2 - Agency Shop. a) Every employee in the bargaining unit covered by this Memorandum of Agreement shall: 1) remain a member in good standing of the Union; or 2) pay to the Union a monthly service fee, to be set by the union in accordance with applicable law, in an amount not to exceed the standard initiation fee, periodic dues, and general assessments of the organization; or, 3) in the case of an employee who certifies that he/she is a member of a recognized religion, body or sect which has historically held conscientious objection to joining or financially supporting public employee organizations, pay a charity fee, equal to the service fee, to a non-religious, non-labor charitable fund exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, chosen from one of the following three charitable organizations agreed to by the City and the Union (or any successor organization(s) agreed to by the City and the Union): United Way of California Community Health Charities Environmental Federation of California Union members may declare their intention to terminate Union membership by registered letter, return receipt requested, to the Director of Human Resources and the Union only during the 30-day period between 60 and 90 days before expiration of the MOA. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 3 of 68 b) Employees who are newly hired into or who join the bargaining unit shall elect one of the above payment deduction options by completing and submitting the Employee Election form within thirty (30) calendar days of being hired into a classification covered by this MOA. c) To qualify for deduction of the Charity Fee, the employee must certify to the Union and City that he/she is a member of a bona fide religious body or sect that has historically held conscientious objection to joining or financially supporting public employee organizations. The employee is required to submit to the City and the Union a notarized letter signed by an official of the bona fide religion, body, or sect certifying that person’s membership. Upon request, the City shall provide to the Union a report of payments made by employees that qualify for the Charity Fee option in this subsection. d) The deductions in this Section shall not apply during any period where an employee is in an unpaid status. e) Involuntary Service Fee Deduction Process: The City shall deduct a service fee from the salary of each bargaining unit member who has not authorized a dues deduction, service fee deduction or charity fee in writing within the time stated in this Section, above. The Union certifies that it has consulted with knowledgeable legal counsel and has thereby determined that this involuntary service fee deduction process satisfies all constitutional and statutory requirements. f) Agency shop may be rescinded only in accordance with the provision of state law. g) Indemnification, Defense and Hold Harmless: Union agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and all officials, employees, and agents acting on its behalf, from any and all claims, actions, damages, costs, or expenses including all attorney’s fees and costs of defense in actions against the City, its officials, employees or agents as a result of actions taken or not taken by the City pursuant to the Agency Shop Arrangement. h) Sign-up forms for deduction of union dues, service fees and charity fees shall be provided by the Union and approved by the City. Section 3 - Documentation. The City shall supply the Union with: a) a monthly electronic file of the names, member/fee payer designation, addresses, classifications, monthly base pay, pay period number, Committee on Political City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 4 of 68 Education (COPE) listed separately and last four digits of the Social Security number of all bargaining unit employees except those who file written notice with the Human Resources Department objecting to release of addresses, in which case information will be transmitted without address; and b) a list of bargaining unit new hires, terminations and retirements which occurred during the previous month. The Union shall supply the City, and as applicable, the employees, with documentation required by Government Code Section 3502.5 (f). Section 4 - Payroll Deduction. The City shall deduct Union membership dues, service fees, charity fees, and any other mutually agreed upon payroll deduction, which may include voluntary COPE check-off, from the bi-weekly pay of bargaining unit employees. The dues/fees deduction must be authorized in writing by the employee on an authorization form acceptable to the City and the Union, except as provided in Section 2(e), above. The dues deduction form shall include a check box for those employees who wish the Union to receive notification in the event of unsatisfactory work, conduct, or disciplinary action taken pursuant to Article XX. City shall remit the deducted dues or fees to the Union as soon as possible after deduction. Section 5 - Bulletin Boards and Departmental Mail. The Union shall have access to inter- office mail, existing bulletin boards in unit employee work areas, and existing Union- paid telephone answering device for the purpose of posting, transmitting, or distributing notice or announcements including notices of social events, recreational events, Union membership meetings, results of elections and reports of minutes of Union meetings. Any other material must have prior approval of the Human Resources Office. Action on approval will be taken within 24 hours of submission. The Union may send email messages only for the purposes set forth above. The IT Department will maintain the SEIU list and keep it current. The Union access to email is based on the following conditions: 1) emails to the SEIU list will be copied to the Human Resource Director at distribution; 2) emails to the SEIU list will only be sent by the SEIU Chapter Chair, Vice Chair, Chief Steward (s) or Secretary, 3) a maximum of 52 emails may be sent per year and a maximum of 12 emails may be sent by the SEIU Chapter Secretary. Section 6 - Access to Union Representatives. Representatives of the Union are authorized access to City work locations for the purpose of conducting business within the scope of representation, provided that no disruption of work is involved and the business transacted is other than recruiting of members or collecting of dues, and the representative must notify the Human Resources Department Office prior to entering the work location. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 5 of 68 Section 7 - Meeting Places. The Union shall have the right to reserve City meeting and conference rooms for use during lunch periods or other non-working hours. Such meeting places will be made available in conformity with City's regulations and subject to the limitations of prior commitment. Section 8 - Notification to the Union. a) General. The Union shall be informed in advance in writing by Management before any proposed changes not covered by this Memorandum of Agreement are made in benefits, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of employment which require meet and confer or meet and consult process. b) Change in City’s Financial Situation. Should the City’s financial situation deteriorate and the possibility of layoffs result, the City Manager will give prior notice to and consult with the Union prior to recommending any layoffs to the City Council. c) Vacancies and Temporary Personnel. The City agrees to notify SEIU Local 521 in writing when any irregular, temporary, hourly, provisional, special or extra help employee who consistently performs work typical of the SEIU Local 521 bargaining unit exceeds 1,000 hours of work within a 18-month period. The City agrees to notify SEIU Local 521 in writing when any position covered by this agreement is left vacant for more than 60 days. Through a separate meet and confer process, the City and Union will develop a way to convert long term, ongoing temporary-hourly positions to regular status. The City and Union will meet and confer regarding wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Section 9 - Union Logo. All materials and documents produced on Itek and metal plates, by the City print and reproduction shop, shall carry the Union label on the inside of covers or title pages in accordance with customary printing trades practices. Section 10 - Public Notice. The City shall make available to the Union, in a timely manner, copies of all City Council meeting agendas, minutes and schedule of meetings. These materials may be picked up at the City Clerk's Office during business hourswill be available online via the City’s website. Section 11 - Use of Agency Reports. Upon request, the City shall provide to the Union reports by department on the use of agency temporaries filling representation unit vacant positions, or doing work similar to that of representation unit classifications. Section 12 - Job Postings. The City shall incorporate the requirements of this Article when publicizing job announcements for classifications covered by this Memorandum of Agreement. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 6 of 68 Section 13 - Contracting Out. The City through the labor management process will kept the Union advised of the status of the budget process, including any formal budget proposal involving the contracting out of SEIU bargaining unit work traditionally performed by bargaining unit members at least thirty (30) days prior to the release of the City Manager’s proposed budget. The City will notify the Union in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to contracting work which has been traditionally performed by bargaining unit members, where such contracting will result in layoff or permanent reduction in hours. Within the ninety (90) day period of contracting out, both parties may offer alternatives to contracting out and meet and confer on the impact of such contracting out of a bargaining unit employee work. The City will notify the Union in writing when contracting out work which has been traditionally performed by bargaining unit workers, where such contracting out is expected to replace a laid off bargaining unit position that has been eliminated within ninety (90) days prior to the date of the planned contract work. When feasible, the City will provide such notice prior to the beginning date of the planned contract work. The City will meet with the Union upon request to discuss alternatives. This provision does not apply to the filling of temporary vacancies of twelve (12) months or less duration. The City will provide the Union with a biannual list by department of all contract workers or vendors who are contracted by the City who perform work for the City. The City will make a reasonable effort to identify the names of the vendors on the list and the nature of the work provided by each vendor. ARTICLE IV - STEWARDS Section 1 - Union Officers. The Union agrees to notify the Director of Human Resources of those individuals designated as Union officers and stewards who receive and investigate grievances and represent employees before Management. Alternates may be designated to perform steward functions during the absences or unavailability of the steward. Section 2 - Number of Stewards. The number of stewards designated by the Union at a given time shall not exceed thirty-five (35). Section 3 - Release Time. It is agreed that, as long as there is prior notice as specified below to the Supervisor with no disruption of work, stewards shall be allowed reasonable release time away from their work duties, without loss of pay, to represent a unit employee or employees on grievances or matters within the scope of representation, including: a) A meeting of the steward and an employee, or employees of that unit related to a grievance. b) A meeting with Management. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 7 of 68 c) Investigation and preparation of grievances. Grievances may be transmitted on City time. All steward release time shall be reported on time cards. Section 4 - Advance Notification Before Leaving Work Location. The Union agrees that the steward shall give no less than one (1) full business day advance notification to his/her supervisor before leaving the work location, except in those cases involving an unforeseeable circumstance that requires immediate union representation where advance notice cannot be given or when the relevant supervisor otherwise allows less notice. A supervisor may deny such a request for release from duty if the steward is needed to ensure real time delivery of services that the steward provides for the public or internal City customers and another employee who normally provides such services is not available on a straight time basis to relieve the steward, or in a bona fide emergency. If such denial occurs, the union may request the release of another of its designated stewards to perform the representation duties involved. Such request shall be processed in accordance with the terms set forth in this section except that the requirement for a full business day advance notice to the replacement representative’s supervisor shall not apply. Nothing herein shall preclude the City from rescheduling a meeting it has scheduled, to facilitate the attendance of a steward who has requested release if, in the City’s judgment, such change can be undertaken without undermining the objectives of the meeting. Section 5 – Release Time. Three Union officers, who are City employees, shall be allowed a reasonable amount of release time off for purposes of meeting and conferring or meeting and consulting on matters within the scope of representation. All such time will be reported on timecards. Section 6 - Designated Union Space. Union stewards may utilize space in assigned desks for storage of Union materials. In the event stewards are not assigned desks the City will provide locker or other mutually agreeable space for storage of Union materials. Section 7- Union Officers and Release Time. Six union officers, who are City employees shall be allowed a reasonable amount of release time off for monthly Labor/Management Meetings. ARTICLE V - REDUCTION IN FORCE Section 1- Attrition. In the event of reductions in force, they shall be accomplished wherever possible through attrition. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 8 of 68 Section 2 - Advance Notice. When the City determines that layoffs are imminent resulting from reduction in force within the representation unit, the City will give the Union such advance notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. The notice will indicate the departments and divisions which will be affected and the circumstances requiring the layoffs. The City will furnish the Union with a current representation unit seniority list with notice of layoff. Section 3 - Order of Layoff. If the work force is reduced within a department, division, or office for reasons of change in duties or organization, abolition of position, shortage of work or funds, or completion of work, employees with the shortest length of service will be laid off first so long as employees retained are fully qualified, trained, and capable of performing remaining work. Length of service for the purpose of this article will be based on current service hire date of record in a regular classification with no adjustment for leaves of absence. Length of service ties will be determined by lot in a method agreeable to both parties. Employees laid off due to the above reasons will be given written notice at least thirty days prior to the reduction in force. A copy of such notice will be given to the Union. Such employees shall be offered priority employment rights to regular positions which are requisitioned and for which the employees are qualified for a period beginning with notification and ending sixty (60) days following the reduction in force. Employees transferred or reclassified under this section will be assigned to the step in the new classification salary range closest to the employee's salary range at the time of reclassification. Employees laid off pursuant to this section shall receive the balance of all regular City compensation owed and severance pay equal to one month’s salary at the employee’s final rate of pay at termination. This does not include any amounts payable under Article V, Section 6, or PERS contribution refunds, if any. Section 4 - Seniority/Bumping Rights. Employees identified for layoff who have seniority (bumping) rights to their current or previously held classifications within the representation unit must declare their intention to exercise these rights in writing and submit to the Human Resources Department within seven (7) working days after written notification of layoff, otherwise bumping rights will automatically terminate. Bumping may occur within the representation unit, only to the least senior incumbent of the current or a previously held classification. To bump, the employee must be fully qualified, trained, and perform all work in the position. For purposes of this section of the Agreement, the term "working days" shall mean Mondays through Fridays, exclusive of holidays. Section 5 - Re-Employment List. The names of employees laid off or who through bumping changed classification in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be entered upon a re-employment list in seniority order. The employee with the greatest seniority on the re-employment list, including those who exercised their bumping rights, shall be offered reinstatement first. Such notice of reinstatement shall be in writing City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 9 of 68 with a copy to the employee, Union and Chapter Chair. If a laid off employee waives reinstatement or fails to respond within ten (10) working days of receipt of the notice, the employee shall be removed from the reemployment list. The person with the highest seniority including those who exercised their bumping rights on a re- employment list for a particular classification when a vacancy exists in that classification shall be offered the appointment. Names shall be carried on a re-employment list for a period of two (2) years from the date of separation from City services or change of classification through bumping. Upon re-employment within the two-year period, the employee's hire date of record at the time of layoff will be reinstated. Section 6 -Sick Leave Balances. Employees laid off pursuant to Section 2 who are reinstated to a regular position within sixty (60) days shall retain the sick leave balance they had at the time of layoff, unless they have received a sick leave payoff in accordance with Article XII. Section 7 - Hourly Employees Performing Duties. No representation unit employee will be laid off or remain on a re-employment list when hourly employees are performing substantially all the duties of the classification of the employee receiving a layoff notice or on a re-employment list. This provision shall not be applied to hourly positions which have been traditionally used for seasonal and part-time work. ARTICLE VI - PERSONNEL ACTIONS Section 1 - Probation. Each new regular or part-time employee shall serve a probationary period of twelve (12) months, commencing with the first day of his/her employment. The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the effective adjustment of a new employee to his/her position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the acceptable standards of work. At least one written performance appraisal will be given each probationary employee on or before expiration of the probationary period. Normally, tThis appraisal will be given approximately at the end of the third sixth month. In the event of termination prior to successful completion of the probationary period, such terminated employee shall be given written notice of his/her termination with the reasons for the termination stated therein. The Human Resources Department shall, upon request, afford an interview in a timely fashion to the terminated employee for discussion of the reasons for termination. The employee may, upon request, be accompanied by a Union representative. The interview shall not be deemed a hearing nor shall it obligate the City to reconsider or alter the termination action. The parties agree that probationary employees shall have all rights under this Memorandum of Agreement, including full and complete access to the grievance procedure, save and except for instances of suspension, demotion or termination. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 10 of 68 Section 2 - Personnel Evaluations. Personnel evaluations will be given to employees as scheduled by Management. Personnel evaluations are not appealable through the grievance procedure but, in the event of disagreement over content, the employee may request a review of the evaluation with the next higher level of Management, in consultation with the Human Resources Department. For purposes of this review, the employee may be represented by the Union. Decisions regarding evaluation appeal shall be made in writing within ten (10) working days following the review meeting. Section 3 - Personnel Files. Records of all disciplinary actions shall be kept in the central personnel file. Employees shall be entitled to sign and date all action forms in their personnel files. Employees are entitled to review their personnel files upon written request or to authorize, in writing, review by their Union representatives. An employee or the Union shall be allowed, upon reasonable request, copies of materials in an employee's personnel file relating to a grievance. Records of disciplinary actions, including references in a performance evaluation, shall be removed from a personnel file upon written request by the employee or in the normal process of file review after a period of three years, or sooner as mutually agreed by Management and the employee. Section 4 - Release of Information. The City will only release information to creditors or other persons upon prior identification of the inquirer and acceptable reasons for the inquiry. Information then given from personnel files is limited to verification of employment, length of employment and verification and disclosure of salary range information. Release of more specific information may be authorized by the employee. Section 5 - Promotional Opportunities. a) Posting. Promotional opportunities for classifications within the representation unit will be posted for at least ten (10) working days (Monday through Friday) prior to selection. Outside recruitment may be used for promotional openings and may begin at the time of posting, or any time thereafter. If, however, there are three or more qualified internal candidates within the department where the vacancy occurs, and those candidates successfully complete the selection process, outside candidates will not be considered. b) Internal Candidate Eligibility. All non-probationary representation unit employees are eligible to apply for posted promotional opportunities, except that Management may waive this requirement for all probationary employees within the department where the promotional opportunity occurs. c) Selection. The selection procedure for each promotional opening will be determined and administered by the Human Resources Department in consultation with the requisitioning department. Selection procedure and job description information will be available at the Human Resources Office at the time of posting. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 11 of 68 Efforts will be made to standardize tests and procedures where standardization is feasible and appropriate. Any tests used shall be reasonably predictive of success in the classification, and tests not be biased with respect to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, political affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, or age. Selection procedures may include any or all of the following phases: 1) Application. Both inside and outside candidates must complete a City of Palo Alto application form specified by the Human Resources Department. Applications must be submitted to the Human Resources Office. 2) Screening. Applications will be screened by the Human Resources Department to ascertain whether candidates meet minimum requirements as outlined in the job description. Internal candidates deemed not to meet minimum requirements may submit additional qualification information writing within three working days of notification of requirement deficiency. 3) Performance Testing. Performance tests, such as typing, machinery or vehicle operation, skills demonstration, physical agility, etc., will be qualifying. Pass-fail points will be announced in advance for qualifying tests. If requested in writing prior to the test, performance test may be witnessed by Union steward. 4) Written Tests. Written achievement or aptitude tests will be qualifying. Pass- fail points will be announced in advance for qualifying tests. 5) Interviews, Appraisals. Interviews may be conducted individually or by interview boards and will be qualifying. Interview boards shall be composed of qualified and unbiased people. Where interview boards are used, Management will include at least one bargaining unit employee on each board. If individual interview or an interview board is used, a majority of the individuals or board members must recommend a candidate in order for the candidate to qualify for appointment. Performance appraisals written by candidates' supervisors may be used as indicated in the selection procedure. d) Recommended Candidates. Candidates who successfully complete all phases of the selection procedure will be recommended to the appointing authority. e) Seniority. Seniority, for purposes of this Article, will be based on current service hire date of record in a regular classification with no adjustment for leaves of absence. Seniority ties will be determined in favor of the employee with the lowest employee number last four digits. Exceptions to this subsection may be established by mutual agreement on a departmental or divisional basis. Such exceptions are listed in Appendix G. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 12 of 68 f) Appointment. The appointing authority will make appointments from among those recommended candidates who are most qualified as determined by objective review of selection procedure results and background materials. Where appointments are made from only internal candidates who are equally qualified as determined by objective review of selection procedure results and past performance, seniority will be the determining factor in promotional appointments. g) Violations. Any violation of this Article may be appealed to the Human Resources Director in Step III of the grievance procedure. Section 6 - Rights. Unit employees applying for a vacant equal or lower paying position shall have the same rights as unit employees applying for a promotion. Section 7 - Apprentice Positions. (a) The City shall establish apprentice positions wherever feasible. Length of apprenticeship, type of training, and pay levels shall be by mutual agreement. Where possible, apprentice positions will underfill regular positions so that incumbents may automatically progress to the classification for which they are training upon successful completion of apprenticeship. The City will meet and confer with the Union before adding any new apprenticeship programs during the term of this agreement. All apprenticeship programs are listed in Appendix B. Section 8 - Rotation. In assigning employees to regular or special shifts, transfer, standby, overtime, or vacation selection, ability to perform the work, length of service and/or equitable rotation shall determine the assignments. In accordance with this provision, more definitive rules may be arranged by mutual agreement of the Union and individual City departments. ARTICLE VII - PAY RATES AND PRACTICES Section 1 - Salary. The base salary rates and ranges for job classifications covered by this bargaining unit shall be increased as set forth in Appendix A-1 to reflect salary increases for all positions in the unit and market adjustments to positions identified in the total compensation survey as under-market based on the survey results for base, cash, insurance and the normal cost of retiree medical, with total rates and rangesare as set forth in Appendix A-2 (Salary Schedule) attached hereto. Said rates and ranges reflect an increase of one and sixty-five one-hundredths percent (1.65%) of June 30, 2012 base rates effective on the first day of the pay period including July 1, 2012 or on adoption of this MOA, whichever is later. Section 2 - Step Increases. Merit advancements from the first salary step to the second salary step shall be granted at six-month intervalsupon successful completion of probation and between second and City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 13 of 68 subsequent steps at one-year intervals, if the affected employee has demonstrated continued improvement and efficient and effective service. For the purpose of determining step time requirements, time will commence on the first day of the month coinciding with or following entrance onto a salary step. Step increases shall be effective on the first day of the payroll period in which the time requirements have been met. Section 3 - Working Out of Classification. The term "working out of classification" is defined as a Management authorized full-time assignment to a budgeted position on a temporary basis wherein all significant duties are performed by an individual holding a classification within a lower compensation range. Pay for working out of classification shall be as follows: a) Employees appointed to an "out of classification" will receive acting pay within the range of the higher classification beginning the first day of the assignment and shall be paid for all hours worked in the higher classification provided employee works a minimum of four (4) hours. Where out-of-class appointments last for more than 90 days, and whenever feasible, out-of-class appointment will be rotated among qualified interested employees in the work group. Employees will receive 5% premium pay for all assigned out of class pay for work within SEIU Classifications with the exception of lead assignments where the out of class pay will result in a 7% premium pay. Out-of-classification provisions do not apply to work assignments performed in connection with specific predetermined apprenticeship or training programs, or declared conditions of public peril and/or disaster. Section 4 - Classification Changes. a) During the course of this agreement, the Union and affected employees shall be notified in advance of any contemplated changes in classification description, wage range or steps. Such changes shall be subject to the meet and confer process. Such meet and confer process shall be concluded within no more than thirty (30) days following delivery of the City’s notice to the Union. If the Union and the City cannot reach agreement on the appropriate pay level from a job so reclassified, the Union may, within ten (10) City business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer process described above by delivery of written notice to the Human Resources Director, refer the dispute over the proposed wage range or steps to arbitration at Step IV of the Grievance Procedure set forth at Article XIX of this Memorandum of Agreement. Section 5 - Reclassification Requests. a) An employee or his/her representative may request in writing a re-evaluation of his/her job based on significant permanent changes in job content or significant City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 14 of 68 discrepancies between job content and classification description. The request must be in writing, contain justification and may be made only on an annual basis during the period of September 10 through October 10. A statement by management that a job reevaluation request will be submitted with the departmental budget does not relieve an employee from the responsibility of submitting his/her own request during this period. The Human Resources Director or his or her designee will initially respond to such requests within ninety (90) calendar days by notice to the employee and the union; however, this timeline may be extended if necessary. Such response shall include any reclassification to a different classification or changes in description that the City believes are warranted and any related changes in applicable pay range or steps. If meetings are held, the employee may request representation. If a reclassification is approved and results in an increase in salary, it shall be retroactive to the date the Employee or Union filed the request for the reclassification. b) If the employee or Union disagrees with the accuracy of the description of duties resulting from the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section or with the wage range or steps assigned by the City as a result of the study, the employee or Union may, within ten (10) City business days of delivery of notice of such determination, appeal such decision under step IV of Article XIX, Grievance Procedure. c) In a dispute under Section 4(a) or section 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall render his or her decision on the appropriate wage range or steps within twenty-one (21) days after the initial hearing date. The same time line will be observed for disputes over the accuracy of the revised classification description. The parties will notify the arbitrator of this deadline at the time of the arbitrator’s selection. In reaching a decision on wage range and steps under Section 4(a) or 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall base his or her award on the factors traditionally taken into account in the establishment of compensation. When deciding a dispute over the accuracy of the revised classification description under section 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall identify the modifications of the pre-existing classification necessary to accurately reflect the permanent changes, if any, that have been implemented. Upon receipt of the arbitrator’s award, the City shall implement the revised classification and wage range or steps as provided in the award except as provided under subsection 5(c) of this section below. Not withstanding an arbitrator’s award pursuant to any appeal process, the City retains the right to forego implementing the changes and the proposed changes shall revert to the status quo as it existed before those changes in duties occurred or were proposed. d) An employee may submit a request for reclassification for the same classification no more than once every twenty-four (24) months. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 15 of 68 Section 6 - Advance of Vacation Pay. Vacation pay shall be made available in advance of regular payday, provided that employee requests such advance in writing to the Finance Department at least two weeks prior to his/her vacation date. The employee's supervisor must verify vacation date on the request. Section 7 - Assignment to a Lead Position. All vacancies in lead positions shall be filled in accordance with Article VI, Section 5. The pay range for the lead position shall be seven percent above the pay step of the highest paid employee on the crew. Departmental exceptions for filling lead positions on a rotational basis for training and development purposes may be arranged by mutual agreement of the Union and individual City departments. Current exceptions are listed in Appendix C. Section 8 - Realignments Total Compensation and Survey Datab Base. a) Management and the Union have agreed to a compensation survey data base structure which identifies specific benchmark classifications for job families, classifications within the job families of each benchmark classification, survey agencies and survey classification matches. Survey Cities include: Alameda Hayward San Mateo Berkeley Mountain View Santa Clara Daly City Redwood City S. San Francisco Fremont San Jose Sunnyvale If, in the opinion of the Human Resources Director (or designee), the employer list will not permit the production of a survey report that includes data from at least four (4) employers that employ employees in a classification comparable to the classification surveyed by the City, neither party is precluded from bringing forward information on other the Human Resources Director (or designee) will attempt to identify the other employers in the relevant recruitment area that employ workers in a comparable classification so that data from at least five (5) surveyed employers will be included in the study, if feasible. Such employer may include any public or private employer. The database is intended to provide one source of information concerning how the compensation paid to employees in bargaining unit job classifications compares to that paid by other employers. The City will update the survey database and send the Union a copy six weeks before expiration of this agreement. This survey will be considered in connection with special adjustment proposals in successor agreement negotiations. By agreeing to a survey database, neither Union nor Management is under obligation to propose or agree to special adjustments. Section 9- Direct Deposit City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 16 of 68 Beginning in the first pay period following union ratification and adoption of this Agreement by the City Council, the City shall directly deposit all paychecks for Unit employees in a financial institution of the employee’s choice that accepts direct deposits and does not charge the City a fee(s) for direct deposit service. In the event that the employee fails to designate a financial institution for direct deposit of his or her payroll check, the employee shall pick up the check personally in the City’s Administrative Services Department office on the next business day following payday at a pickup time designated by Administrative Services. ARTICLE VIII - HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, PREMIUM PAY Section 1 - Work Week and Work Day. The standard workday for regular employees shall be eight hours to be worked within a maximum of nine hours (five-day work week) or ten hours to be worked within a maximum of eleven (four-day work week) or nine hours to be worked within a maximum of ten for four days with a fifth day of four hours (four and one-half day work week); or, within a fourteen-day period, nine hours to be worked within a maximum of ten hours for one day and eight hours to be worked within a maximum of ten hours for one day, with the work week scheduled to begin so that forty hours are worked within each seven days of the fourteen-day period (9/80 plan, with forty-hour work weeks), or any other schedule that results in a 40-hour work week, or fits within the parameters of an FLSA 2080 Plan. The "9/80 plan" may not be used in any application that requires entitlement to FLSA overtime for working the regular work week. With the exception of the "9/80 plan" as described above and the 4/11 Dispatcher Plan, the standard work week shall be forty hours to be worked within five consecutive days. Additional exceptions to the above are listed in Appendix D. The Union shall be notified of any further exceptions to this section in accordance with Article III, Section 8. The City and the Union agree that the availability of alternate/flexible work schedules is a valuable benefit in that they promote job satisfaction while also reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. During the term of this agreement, employees, subject to the conditions of their job assignment, may propose an alternate work schedule as listed under this Section. Such proposals must be made to the department head through the immediate supervisor. Serious consideration will be given to the feasibility and productivity of such proposals, however Management retains the right to determine scheduling needs. Section 2 - Overtime Work. a) Overtime work for all unit employees shall be defined as any time worked beyond the standard workday or beyond the standard work week. Emergency overtime is defined as unplanned overtime work arising out of situations involving real loss of service or property or personal danger. Emergency overtime does not include: City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 17 of 68 i. overtime work resulting from personnel replacement for purposes of maintaining scheduled staffing; ii. overtime work which is planned in advance; iii. overtime work resulting from being held over for up to four hours to finish work performed during the regular shift. b) Compensation to employees working overtime will be in the form of additional pay at the rate of one and one-half times. Two times regular rate will be paid for billable customer convenience overtime and emergency overtime as defined in subsection (a) above) the employee's applicable hourly salary with the exception that an employee may request and, upon approval, be granted compensatory time off at the rate of one and one-half hours for each hour of overtime worked, subject to the limitations of applicable state and federal laws. In the event compensatory time off is used as the method of compensating for Overtime, the time off will be taken prior to the end of the quarter following the quarter in which the overtime has been worked. In the event the employee is denied this provision, he/she will be compensated in pay for such time at the appropriate rate specified by these sections. Or at the employee's option, the earned compensatory time will be added to the employee's vacation balance. c) All time for which pay is received shall count as hours actually worked for the computation of regular overtime pay; however, non-productive time will not be included in computation of any additional FLSA premiums. d) When an employee is required to work 6 or more hours of overtime (either emergency or pre-arranged) during the 16 hour period immediately preceding the beginning of the employee’s regular shift on a workday, the employee shall be entitled to an eight-hour rest period before returning to work. If the rest period overlaps into the second half of the work day, the employee may be given (with supervisor approval) the remaining time off (up to a maximum of 3 hours) at the straight time rate of pay. Any portion of the rest period falling within the employee’s work shift will be considered as hours worked and compensated at the straight time rate. e) If non-emergency overtime is canceled without at least 40 clock hours notice, the City shall pay the affected employees two (2) hours' pay at time and one-half. f) Employees working overtime who are too fatigued to continue or return to work, for safety reasons will be released from duty without compensation. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 18 of 68 Section 3 - Work Shifts. All employees shall be assigned to work shifts with scheduled starting and quitting times. Should conditions necessitate a change in starting and quitting times, the Union will be notified ten (10) working days in advance and permitted to discuss such changes with the City. This, however, shall not preclude the City's right to effect schedule changes dictated by operational necessity. This section does not apply to overtime scheduling. Section 4 - City-Paid Meals. a) Emergency overtime meals. For purposes of this section, emergency overtime is defined as unplanned overtime arising out of situations involving real loss of service or property or personal danger. The City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner and will provide meals in the following emergency overtime situations: 1) When an employee is called back and is on duty for a period of three consecutive hours, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. OR, 2) When an employee is held over on duty so that his/her overtime assignment extends two hours after shift end, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. OR, 3) When an employee is called out two hours or more before a regularly scheduled day shift and works the regularly scheduled shift, he/she will be entitled to breakfast and lunch. Lunches will be consumed on employee's own time. No in- lieu pay will be made for meals not taken. This sub-section does not apply if already covered in Section 4(a)(1) above. 4) When recalled two hours or less after the end of a regular shift, unless assigned to standby. b) Non-emergency overtime meals. The City will provide meals for personnel assigned to non-emergency overtime work where the assignment extends more than two hours after the regular or overtime shift end and at intervals of five hours thereafter. c) With regard to (a) and (b) above, the City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner. Where possible, the City will arrange purchase orders at mutually agreeable restaurants. The time necessarily taken to consume a meal provided under this section shall be considered as time worked to a maximum of one hour, except as noted in (a) (3). City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 19 of 68 d) With regard to (a) and (b) above, in the event an employee is to be provided a meal or meals pursuant to this section and such meal(s) are not provided due to working conditions, the employee shall have the option of receiving for each meal not provided an additional one hour of overtime compensation in lieu of such meal. This hour will not be considered as time worked or part of the rest period, but will be applied to qualify for the rest period. e) Emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. The Police Department will provide meals to employees in an emergency overtime situation involving real or potential loss of service or personal danger. 1) When an employee is called back and is on duty for a period of three consecutive hours, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. 2) When an employee is held over on duty so that his/her overtime assignment extends two hours after shift end, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. 3) When an employee is called out two hours or more before a regularly scheduled shift. The employee will be entitled to two meals, the second meal will be consumed on the employee's own time. No in-lieu pay will be made for meals not taken. 4) When recalled two hours or less after the end of a regular shift, unless assigned to standby. f) Non-emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. The Police Department will provide meals to employees in non-emergency situations where the assignment extends more than two hours after the regular or overtime shift end and at intervals of five hours thereafter. If the City is unable to provide a meal, the City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner. This policy only applies when an employee is held over, either voluntary or mandated, on duty beyond a scheduled regular or overtime shift. Section 5 - Break Periods. All employees shall be granted a break period or coffee break limited to 15 minutes during each four hours of work. Departments may make reasonable rules concerning break period scheduling. Break periods not taken shall be waived. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 20 of 68 Section 6 - Clean-Up Time. All employees whose work causes their person or clothing to become soiled shall be provided with reasonable time before lunch and at shift end for wash-up purposes. Section 7 - Standby Pay, Call-Out Pay. a) Standby Compensation. Employees performing standby duty shall be compensated at the daily rates established below: Monday through Friday $5070 Saturday, Sunday, Holidays $73100 b) Minimum Call-Out Pay. Employees not otherwise excluded from receiving overtime pay who are called out to perform work shall be compensated for at least two hours' pay from the time of the call-out for each occurrence at the appropriate overtime rate. The two-hour minimum does not apply to employees called out to work while earning pay for being in a standby status unless called out to perform billable customer convenience work in which case the two-hour minimum will apply. Section 8 - Night Shift Premium. Night shift premium of $1.44 per hour shall be paid to employees for work performed between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. This premium shall not apply to an employee whose schedule does not qualify for shift differential who requests an earlier scheduled start time that would otherwise qualify the employee for the premium. A minimum of two hours must be worked between 6 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. to qualify for the premium. Employees who regularly work night shifts shall receive appropriate night shift premiums, relating to night shift hours worked, in addition to base pay for holidays, sick leave and vacation. Night shift premium does not apply for overtime situations unless overtime is approved to replace an employee who would have otherwise received a night shift premium. Section 9 - Bilingual Premium. $35 per pay period shall be paid to a bilingual employee whose abilities have been determined by the Human Resource Director as qualifying to fill positions requiring bilingual speaking and/or writing ability when the employee regularly performs such duties. The Human Resource Director will determine the number, timing, location and duration of the assignments receiving the additional pay provided herein and which languages are needed. Sign language shall be recognized as a bilingual skill under this Article. Disagreements over the designation of positions will be referred first to the Labor Management Committee. If a disagreement still exists it will be referred to the Grievance Procedure. Section 10 - Communications Training Officer (CTO) Compensation. Public Safety Dispatchers and Chief Public Safety Dispatchers identified by Management to work as a Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) certified CTO will be compensated at a City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 21 of 68 premium pay rate of five (5) percent. The premium pay is provided only for those hours spent as a CTO training a probationary dispatcher while on-duty in the Dispatch Center. ARTICLE IX - UNIFORMS AND TOOL ALLOWANCES Section 1 - Uniforms. a) The City will provide uniforms, coveralls or shop coats on a weekly basis, or as otherwise furnished, for the following jobs and/or classifications and any positions necessary or required as determined by management. Animal Control Officer Assistant Storekeeper Auto Service Mechanic Building Service Person - Lead Building Service Person Cathodic Technician Cement Finisher - Lead Cement Finisher Chemist Community Service Officer () Electrical Assistant Electrician Apprentice Electrician Lead Engineering Technician III - Refuse Equipment Operator Equipment Operator - Lead Facilities Carpenter Facilities Electrician Facilities Maintenance - Lead Facilities Mechanic Facilities Painter Field Serviceperson Gas System Shop/Field Repairer Gas System Technician I Gas System Technician II Golf Course Equipment Mechanic Golf Course Maintenance Person Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead Heavy Equipment Operator Industrial Waste Inspector Industrial Waste Investigator Instrumentation Electrician City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 22 of 68 Laboratory Technician, Water Quality Control Line Person/Cable Splicer Line Person/Cable Splicer - Lead Mail Services Specialist Maintenance Mechanic/Maintenance Mechanic, Water Quality Control Mechanical Unit Repairer Meter Reader Meter Reader – Lead Mobile Service Technician Motor Equipment Mechanic - Lead Motor Equipment Mechanic Offset Equipment Operator - Lead Offset Equipment Operator Park Maintenance Assistant Parking Enforcement Officer Park Maintenance Person Park Crew - Lead Park Maintenance - Lead Park Ranger Parks & Open Space Assistant Police Records Specialist Refuse Disposal Attendant Senior Chemist Senior Industrial Waste Inspector Senior Instrumentation Technician Senior Operator, Water Quality Control Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control Senior Park Ranger Sprinkler System Repairer Street Maintenance Assistant Storekeeper Storekeeper-Lead Street Sweeper Operator Traffic Control Maintainer - Lead Traffic Control Maintainer II Traffic Control Maintainer I Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer Tree Maintenance Assistant Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer Assistant Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer - Lead Tree Maintenance Person Truck Driver Utilities Compliance Technician City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 23 of 68 Utility Field Service Representative Utility Installer/Repairer Utility Installer/Repairer Assistant Utility Installer/Repairer – Lead Utility Locator Water Meter Cross Connection Technician Water System Operator - Lead Water System Operator Water System Operator I Water System Operator II Water Quality Control Plant Operator b) Coveralls will be made available for occasional use as needed to protect clothing for the following classifications and any positions necessary or required as determined by management. Building Inspector Building Inspector Specialist Building Service Person - Lead Cable Splicer Assistant Chief Electric Underground Inspector Electrical Assistant Electrician Facilities Mechanic/Painter Heavy Equipment Operator Lineperson/Cable Splicer Park Ranger Senior Park Ranger Utility Field Service Representative Sprinkler System Repairer Utility Installer Assistant Utility Installer/Repairer Utility Installer/Repairer - Lead c) Employees required to wear uniforms shall be provided suitable change rooms and lockers where presently provided. d) Employee clothing seriously damaged or destroyed in conjunction with an industrial injury will be reasonably replaced by the City. Any other claims alleging City liability may be filed with the City Attorney. e) Except in the Utilities Division, the City will make available, as an alternative to the shirts currently provided under Section 1(a), six (6) cotton polo shirts. Employees in City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 24 of 68 the Utilities Division will be provided with six (6) long-sleeve shirts and two polo shirts. Employees will be responsible for laundering the shirts. Damaged or otherwise unwearable shirts will be returned to the employee’s supervisor and replaced by the City. f) Employees are responsible for laundering Park Ranger and Senior Park Ranger uniforms. g) The City will meet and confer with the Union regarding any mandated changes to uniforms. Section 2 - Tool Allowance. a) Mechanics in Equipment Maintenance, Park Maintenance Lead, Motorized Equipment Mechanic and Mobile Service Technician shall be paid a tool allowance of $610 annually. b) All tool allowances shall be paid bi-weekly. c) Parties will meet and confer to determine if additional classifications require tool allowance. Section 3 - Shoe Allowance. a) Safety Shoes. The City shall reimburse employees 75 % of the cost of job-related safety shoes upon verification of such purchase by the employee. b) Walking Shoes. The City will reimburse employees 75% of the cost of job-related walking shoes for any positions necessary or required as determined by management including Meter Reader and Meter Reader-Lead, in an amount not to exceed $300.00 per year. A walking shoe is a durable work shoe/boot (non steel- toed), is ankle supporting; oil, gas and slip resistant; waterproof or water resistant; lightweight and durable; and also provides hard surface cushioning. Section 4 - Certifications. The parties agree to retain the current list of required certifications below. Employees who are required to maintain commercial driver's licenses shall have costs for medical examinations paid by: a) Completing an examination through their PEMHCA provider. After benefits have been paid by the PEMHCA provider, upon presentation of proper documentation, the City will reimburse any remaining costs, or City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 25 of 68 b) Completing an examination at the Workforce Medical clinic or other City designated clinic. Employees may use paid leave for attendance at scheduled medical examinations. Employees shall be permitted to use up to two hours of regular City- paid time for attendance at biannual medical examinations. The scheduling of such time shall be preauthorized by the employee’s supervisor. c) The City will pay special registration and/or certification fees which are required by Management. During the term of this agreement, the City and the Union may, by mutual agreement, review, add or delete classifications and/or required certifications listed below: Classification Requirement Buildg Inspection Specialist ICBO Certificate Cathodic Technician Corrosion Technician by the National Assoc. of Corrision Engineers Engineer Professional Professional Engineer Cert. (for step E) Equip Maint Serv Pers. Forklift Operator Cert. (OSHA-approved) Golf Course Maint Pers. Qualified Applicators' License Heavy Equipment Operator Crane Operation Certificate (Utilities and Electric) Indust. Waste Inspector Backflow Prevention Device Tester Inspector Field Services, Utilities D1 (DOH) Hired before July 1, 2012 Installer/Repairer Series D1 (DOH) Maintenance Mechanic Crane Operator Certification (Water Quality) Mech. Unit Repairer Welding Certificate Motor Equip Mechanic and Lead EMS, ASE Public Safety Dispatcher POST Basic Dispatcher POST Fire Academy EMD City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 26 of 68 Public Safety Dispatcher, Lead POST Basic Dispatcher POST Fire Academy POST Supervision EMD Senior Operator, WQC Grade III Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification Surveyor, PW Licensed Land Surveyor Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Certified Tree Worker and/or Qualified Line Clearance/Tree Trimmer Cert. (OSHA-approved) Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer-Lead Certified Arborist Utilities Install/Rep series Polyethylene Fusing Cert. Gas Operator Certification (DOT) Veterinarian Technician Animal Health Tech. Certification Water System Operator I Grade DI – Water Distribution Operator Water System Operator II Grade DII – Water Distribution Operator & Grade TII – Water Treatment Operator Senior, Water System Operator Grade DIII – Water Distribution Operator & Grade TIII Water Treatment Operator WQC Plant Operator I Grade I Water Treatment Operator Certification. WQC Plant Operator II Grade II Water Treatment Operator Certification WQC Plant Operator Trainee Grade I Water Treatment Operator Certification Water Meter Cross- Connection Technician Backflow Prevention Tester Certification City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 27 of 68 d) The City will pay for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) licensing fees for all employees required to maintain a Commercial Driver's License in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and applicable laws prescribed by the Department of Transportation. e) Pipeline Welding Assignment. The City provided a 4% premium in base compensation to Utility Installer-Repairer, Installer-Repairer Lead positions in 2006 that met DOT certification requirements and are were assigned these duties. Utility Installer-Repairer and Utility Installer-Repairer Lead positions that fail to maintain current certifications will not receive a 4%premium on their base pay. Positions assigned these duties and designated by Management to receive this premium will not exceed five (5) Utility Installer/Repairer and Installer/Repairer Lead. If the certification is required in the job description, certification must be maintained. In accordance with their job description Maintenance Mechanics that are assigned to Water Gas Wastewater must maintain all required certifications and shall receive 4% premium to their base pay for pipeline welding. f) Building Inspector. Upon successful completion of probationary requirements, the City will pay Building Inspectors a one (1) percent of base salary one-time payment for a certification above what is required. Employees may request one payment per year to a maximum of two payments in career. Payments will not exceed a maximum of one percent per year or two payments in a career. The Building Inspector Job Description specifies current requirements and the Union and City will agree on a list of appropriate certifications eligible for the premium. Premiums will not be paid if certification is not maintained. g) Water and Wastewater System Operator Certification. Employees classified in the following positions: Water Quality Control Plant Operators I and II, Senior Operator Water Quality Control, Water System Operators I and II, Senior Water Systems Operator, Inspector, Field Services assigned to Utilities and Installer Repairer Job Series may be eligible to receive a 1% base pay premium for certifications required by the Department of Health and/or the State Water Resources Control Board. Employees within these job classifications that have successfully completed probationary requirements may request an annual payment of one (1) percent for one (1) certification that is above those listed in their job description. An employee who qualifies for this payment shall be paid 1% of the employee’s annual base salary once per year. The employee shall be responsible for providing the City with written documentation that the employee has obtained and is maintaining the qualifying certification on an annual basis. Premiums will not be paid if certification is not maintained. Eligible employees should verify certification will qualify for the premium before attempting certification. The Union and the City will update the job descriptions to reflect newly required certifications with no further adjustments to base salary. Payments will not exceed a maximum of one percent per year, and will City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 28 of 68 take effect in the pay period following the verification of certification. All costs for obtaining certifications above what the job description requires will be the responsibility of the employee and may be paid for by using the City’s tuition reimbursement program. h) In accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations any employee who operates a forklift must have Forklift Operator Certification. Training to be provided by the City. i) Crane Certification. A Heavy Equipment Operator, Line Person, Line Person Lead, or Maintenance Mechanic who possesses the legally required certification for operation of any crane will receive an increase of one percent (1%) of their base rate effective upon the ratification and adoption of this MOU by the City Council, or upon attainment of the certification, whichever is later. Heavy Equipment Operator (Electric) must possess a Crane certification regardless of hire date. Any employee hired on or after July 1, 2012 may be required to obtain and possess crane certification. For any other employee hired prior to July 1, 2012 crane certification shall be desirable (not required) except under the following circumstances: a) there are insufficient employees in the classification (Heavy Equipment Operator [exclusive of Electric], Lineperson, Lineperson Lead or Maintenance Mechanic) who possess the certification to perform the work; b) The Manager has sought volunteers and no employee in the classification has volunteered to train for the certification; c) all things being equal, the manager has selected the least senior employee in the classification who is judged by the City most likely to successfully complete the training and obtain crane certification. d) The Manager will allow up to three attempts to pass the crane certification for any employee hired before July 1, 2012 who has been involuntarily assigned to acquire the crane certification. Related training and test costs shall be borne by the City. No employee hired before July 1, 2012 shall be disciplined or discharged for failure to acquire a Crane certification. Section 5 - Weather Protection. The City will provide rainy weather foot protection and one summer hat for the classification of Parking Enforcement Officer. ARTICLE X - HOLIDAYS City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 29 of 68 Section 1 - Fixed Holidays. Except as otherwise provided, employees within the representation unit shall have the following fixed holidays with pay: January 1 Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King Day) Third Monday in February Last Monday in May July 4 First Monday in September Second Monday in October Veterans' Day, November 11 Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving December 25 Either December 24 or December 31 (see below) Employees shall be excused with pay for the full work shift on either December 24 or December 31, provided, however, that City facilities remain open with reduced staffing levels, that Management retains the right to determine work schedules, and that neither day be considered a holiday for purposes of premium pay. If employees are not excused pursuant to this provision, one shift of vacation credit will be added to their vacation accrual. In the event that any of the aforementioned days, except for December 24 or December 31, falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be considered a holiday. In the event that any of the aforementioned days falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be considered a holiday. If December 24 and 31 falls on Sunday, then the preceding Friday will be designated for purposes of the holiday. Exceptions to this provision are listed in Appendix E. Section 2 - Pay for Fixed Holidays. a) All employees shall be paid a full day's pay at their regular straight time base hourly rate for all fixed holidays as defined herein. b) An employee must be in a pay status on the workday preceding the holiday to be eligible to be compensated for a holiday. This subsection does not apply to an employee who is on an unpaid medical leave of absence of less than five (5) days. Section 3 - Work on Fixed Holidays. Any employee required to work on a fixed holiday shall be paid time and one-half for such work in addition to his or her regular holiday pay. Work on a fixed holiday beyond the number of hours in a regular shift shall be compensated at double time and one-half. Employees who work a schedule where a City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 30 of 68 regular day off falls on a holiday will accrue the holiday hours they would have normally worked on that day. Section 4 - Variations in Work Week. a) An employee whose work schedule requires that his or her regular days off be other than Saturday and/or Sunday shall have an additional day off scheduled by the department in the event a fixed holiday falls during his or her regularly scheduled day off. Every attempt will be made to schedule the day on a mutually agreeable basis. If the day cannot be so scheduled, the employee shall be paid for the day at the straight time base rate. b) Fixed holidays which fall during a vacation period or when an employee is absent because of illness shall not be charged against the employee's vacation or sick leave balance. Section 5 - Floating Days Off Employees hired on or before July 1, 2012 will be credited with 3 floating holidays to be scheduled for use by mutual agreement by employee and supervisor. In no event will FH be convertible to cash or other benefits in lieu of Floating Holidays. Effective at the close of business 6/30/13 one floating holiday will be eliminated. On July 1, 2013 and every July thereafter, employees will be credited with two (2) Floating Holidays to be scheduled in the same manner as noted above. Employees hired after 7/1/12 will not receive any floating holidays. Floating Holidays not used by the end of the fiscal year will be deemed forfeited. ARTICLE XI - VACATIONS Section 1 - Vacation Accruals. Each employee shall be entitled to an annual paid vacation, accrued as follows: a) First day of continuous service through the last day of the fourth (4th) year: 80 hours vacation per year. b) First day of the fifth year of continuous service through the last day of the ninth (9th) year: 120 hours vacation per year. c) First day of the tenth (10th) year of continuous service through the last day of the fourteenth (14th) year: 160 hours vacation per year. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 31 of 68 d) First day of the fifteenth (15th) year of continuous service through the last day of the nineteenth (19th) year: 180 hours vacation leave per year. e) Twenty (20) or more years: 200 hours vacation leave per year. Employees may accrue up to three times their annual vacation leave without loss of vacation days. In the event the City is unable to schedule vacation and, as a result thereof, the employee is subject to loss of accrued vacation, the City shall extend the vacation accrual limit up to one year, in which time the excess vacation must be scheduled and taken. As long as there is no interference with departmental operations, there shall be no unreasonable restriction of increments of use. Employees shall complete six (6) months' continuous service before using accrued vacation leave. Section 2 - Holiday Falling During Vacation. In the event a fixed holiday as defined in Article X falls within an employee's vacation period, which would have excused the employee from work (and for which no other compensation is made), an additional workday for such holiday shall be added to the vacation leave. Section 3 - Illness During Vacation. When an employee becomes ill while on vacation and such illness can be supported by a statement from an accredited physician or the employee is hospitalized for any period, the employee shall have the period of illness charged against sick leave and not against vacation leave. Section 4 - Accrued Vacation Pay for Deceased Employees. An employee who is eligible for vacation leave and who dies while in the municipal service shall have the amount of any accrued vacation paid to his/her estate within thirty days. This proration will be computed at his/her last basic rate of pay. Section 5 - Effect of Extended Military Leave. An employee who interrupts service because of extended military leave shall be compensated for accrued vacation at the time the leave becomes effective. Section 6 - Vacation at Termination. Employees leaving the municipal service with accrued vacation leave shall be paid the amounts of accrued vacation to the date of termination. Section 7 - Vacation Cash Out. Once each calendar year an employee may cash out eight or more hours of vacation accrual in excess of 80 hours, to a maximum of 120 hours, provided that the employee has taken 80 hours of vacation in the previous 12 months. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 32 of 68 1. To be eligible for cash out vacation, employees must pre-elect the number of vacation hours they will cash out during the following calendar year up to maximum of 120 hours, prior to the start of that calendar year. The election will apply only to vacation hours accrued in the next tax year and eligible for cash out. 2. The election to cash out vacation hours in each designated year will be irrevocable. This means that employees who elect to cash out vacation hours must cash out the number of accrued hours pre-designated on the election form provided by the City. 3. Employees who do not pre-designate or decline a cash out amount by the annual deadline established by the City will be deemed to have waived the right to cash out any leave in the following tax year and will not be eligible to cash out vacation hours in the next tax year. 4. Employees who pre-designate cash out amounts may request a cash out at any time in the designated tax year by submitting a cash out form to Payroll. Payroll will complete the cash out upon request, provided the requested cash out amount has accrued and is consistent with the amount the employee pre-designated. If the full amount of hours designated for cash out is not available at the time of cash out request, the maximum available will be paid. 5. For employees who have not requested payment of the elected cash out amount by November 1 of each year, Payroll will automatically cash out the pre-designated amount in a paycheck issued on or after the payroll date including November 1. ARTICLE XII - LEAVE PROVISIONS Section 1 - Sick Leave. a) The City shall provide each employee with paid sick leave, earned on a daily basis and computed at the rate of 96 hours per year, with no limits on amounts that may be accumulated, except that for employees hired after July 1, 1983, sick leave accrual accumulation shall be limited to 1,000 hours and subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), shall not apply. Payment for accumulated sick leave at termination shall be made only in the following circumstances: 1) Eligible employees who leave the municipal service or who die while employed and who have fifteen or more years of continuous service shall receive compensation for unused sick leave hours in a sum equal to two and one-half percent of their unused sick leave hours multiplied by their years of continuous service and their base hourly rate of pay at termination. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 33 of 68 2) Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the event of termination due to disability. b) Use of Sick Leave. Sick leave shall be allowed and used in cases of actual personal sickness or disability, medical or dental treatment, or as authorized for personal business. Up to nine days sick leave per year may be used for illness in the immediate family, including registered domestic partner. A new employee may, if necessary, use up to forty-eight (48) hours of sick leave at any time during the first six months of employment. Any negative balances generated by such utilization will be charged against future accrual or deducted from final paycheck in the event of termination. c) An employee who has been disabled for 60 consecutive days and who is otherwise eligible both for payment under the long-term disability group insurance coverage and accrued sick leave benefits may, at his/her option, choose either to receive the long term disability benefits or to utilize the remainder of his/her accrued sick leave prior to applying for long-term disability benefits. d) Sick leave will not be granted for illness occurring during any leave of absence unless the employee can demonstrate that it was necessary to come under the care of a doctor while on such other leave of absence. e) Return to Work With Limited Duty. Upon approval of department management and the City Risk Manager, an employee may return to work for doctor-approved limited duty. Approval for return to work shall be based upon department ability to provide work consistent with medical limitations, the location of the work assignment, and the length of time of the limitations. The City doctor may be consulted in determining work limitations. Section 2 - Bereavement Leave. Leave of absence with pay of three days shall be granted an employee by the head of his or her department in the event of death in the employee's immediate family, which is defined for the purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, step-son, son-in-law, daughter, step-daughter, daughter-in-law, mother, step-mother, mother-in-law, father, step-father, father-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, step-brother, sister, step-sister, sister in- law, grandmother, grandmother-in-law, grandfather, grandfather-in-law, grandchildren, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, registered domestic partner, or a close relative residing in the household of the employee. Such leave shall be at full pay and shall not be charged against the employee's accrued vacation or sick leave. Request for leave with pay in excess of three (3) days shall be subject to the written approval of the City Manager. Approval of additional leave will be based on the circumstances of each request with consideration given to the employee's need for additional time. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 34 of 68 Section 3 - Military Leave. The provisions of the Military and Veterans' Code of the State of California shall govern the granting of military leaves of absence and the rights of employees returning from such leaves. Consistent with the Military and Veterans Code, the City of Palo Alto shall pay employees in SEIU bargaining unit their regular salary, salary differential, and all available benefits for the firstup to thirty days per calendar year. Section 4 - Leave Without Pay. a) Disability. Leaves of absence without pay may be granted in cases of disability not covered by sick leave. Pregnancy will be considered as any other disability. Leaves of absence for disability are subject to physicians' verification including diagnosis and medical work restriction. b) Family Leave. Family leave will be granted in accordance with applicable state and federal law. c) Other Leaves. Leaves of absence without pay may be granted in cases of personal emergency, Union business or when such absences would not be contrary to the best interest of the City. Non-disability prenatal leave is available under this provision, but such leave shall not begin more than six months prenatal nor extend more than six months postpartum. During unpaid leaves of absence for disability or other reasons, the employee may elect to use accrued vacation credits. Requests for leaves without pay shall not be unreasonably denied. In order to avoid misunderstandings, all leaves without pay must be in writing to be effective. Section 5 - Jury Duty and Subpoenas. Employees required to report for jury duty or to answer subpoenas as a witness in behalf of the State of California or any of its agencies shall be granted a leave of absence with pay from their assigned duties until released by the court, provided the employee remits to the City all fees received from such duties other than mileage or subsistence allowances within thirty (30) days from the termination of jury service. When an employee returns to complete a regular shift following time served on jury duty or as a witness, such time falling within the work shift shall be considered as time worked for purposes of shift completion and overtime computation. In determining whether or not an employee shall return to his or her regular shift following performance of the duties, reasonable consideration shall be given to such factors as travel time and a period of rest. When a combination of City work time and jury duty equals 14 or more hours in the 24-hour period immediately before the employee's shift starting time, the employee will be allowed a rest period of nine hours. Any portion of the rest period falling within the employee's work shift will City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 35 of 68 be considered as hours worked and compensated at the straight time rate. This provision does not apply to conditions of bona fide emergency. Bona fide emergency conditions are conditions involving real or potential loss of service or property or personal danger. Section 6 - Time Off to Vote. Time off with pay to vote in any general or direct primary election shall be granted as provided in the State of California Elections Code, and notice that an employee desires such time off shall be given in accordance with the provisions of said Code. Section 7 - Disapproval of Leave of Absence. In case of disapproval of extension, revocation or cancellation of an existing leave of absence, notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employee stating the date of such action, the reason and a specific date to return to work, which is not less than five working days from date indicated on return receipt. Section 8 - Personal Business Leave Chargeable to Sick Leave. All employees shall be granted up to twenty (20) hours personal business leave per calendar year, chargeable to sick leave. The employee need not disclose the reason for the personal business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval of the appropriate level of Management, and such approval shall not unreasonably be denied. Section 9 - Return to Assignment. The department shall make every effort to ensure that employees resuming work following a leave pursuant to Sections 1- 8 shall be returned to the assignment, shift, and/or work location held immediately prior to the leave. If the employee cannot be so assigned, he or she shall, upon request, be granted a meeting with department management to discuss the reasons for the change. Upon request, the employee shall be afforded Union representation at such a meeting. ARTICLE XIII - WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Section 1 - Industrial Temporary Disability. a) While temporarily disabled, employees shall be entitled to use accrued sick leave for the first three (3) days following the date of injury and thereafter shall be paid full base salary for a period of not to exceed fifty-seven (57) calendar days, unless hospitalized, in which case employees shall be paid full base salary for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from date of injury. b) For any temporary disability continuing beyond the time limits set forth in (a) above, employees shall be paid two-thirds (66 2/3%) of their full base salary at the time of injury for the duration of such temporary disability in conformance with the State law. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 36 of 68 c) During the period of temporary disability, an employee's eligibility for health, dental, life, LTD, or other insured program will continue with City contributions at the same rate as for active employees. In case of Subsection (a) above, the employee will continue to accrue vacation and sick leave benefits. In the case of Subsection (b), sick leave and vacation benefits shall not be accrued. Section 2 - Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits for Permanently Disabled Employees. Vocational Rehabilitation will be made available to employees who have suffered permanent disability as a result of an injury or illness sustained in the course and scope of employment before 1/1/04. For injuries on or after 1/1/04 qualified employees are entitled to supplemental job displacement vouchers in accordance with the California Labor Code, Division 1, Department of Industrial Relations and Division 4, Workers’ Compensation and Insurance, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the City of Palo Alto's Workers’ Compensation Program. ARTICLE XIV - BENEFIT PROGRAMS Section 1 - Health Plan a) Active Employees During the term of this contract, the maximum City’s contribution towards medical premiums for eligible full time employees per employee category shall be up to a maximum of the following for any plan: Medical Premium Category PEMHCA contribution* Additional City Contribution 2014/2015 Up to a Total Maximum City Contribution Effective 1st PP following contract adoption Up to a Total Maximum City Contribution Effective January 1, 2015 Employee only $119.00 $569.00/$589.00 $688.00 $708.00 Employee plus one $119.00 $1256.00/$1296.00 $1375.00 $1415.00 Employee Family $119.00 $1669.00/$1721.00 $1788.00 $1840.00 Effective with the first pay period including January 1, 2015, the City’s total maximum contribution towards medical premiums for eligible part time employees shall be prorated based on the number of hours per week the part-time employee is assigned to work. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 37 of 68 *PEMHCA minimum changes per statutory determination. Any increases to the PEMHCA minimum during the term of this contract will result in a corresponding decrease to the amount of the additional City contribution, so that the total maximum City contribution never exceeds the amount listed in the “Total Maximum City Contribution” columns above. 1. Through October 5, 2012 the City and employees will continue to contribute toward medical insurance premiums in the same proportion and subject to the same terms that they contributed toward such premiums as of June 30, 2012. Effective at the start of the pay period including October 6, 2012 the City will pay a maximum of ninety percent (90%) of the monthly medical premium for the plan in which the employee is enrolled at the employee’s applicable level of enrollment (i.e. employee only, employee plus one dependent or employee plus two or more dependents). However, the City will in no event contribute more than ninety percent (90%) of the premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing array of plan sat the employee’s applicable level of enrollment. City medical premium contributions will be prorated for part-time employees hired or newly assigned to a part-time work schedule on or after January 1, 2010 based on the number of hours per week the part-time employee is assigned to work. If PERS changes the plans it offers, the City and the Union will meet and confer over the City continuing to provide an equivalent benefit at an equivalent cost. The City shall contribute to its retiree insurance trust (the PERS retiree medical trust or its successor) an amount not less than the amount of premium contributions paid by active employees in the bargaining unit in the respective calendar year as a result of the employees’ payment of ten percent (10%) of the premium increase as provided above in this paragraph 1. The City shall make one contribution in the fiscal year to cover the entire amount payable to the trust under this paragraph as of the preceding December 31. b) Health Plan Coverage for Future Retirees Hired Before January 1, 2005. Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health plan through the CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as provided under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act. Effective 1/1/07 the City’s monthly employer contribution for each retiree shall be the amount necessary to pay for the cost of his or her enrollment, in a health benefits plan up to the monthly premium for the 2nd most expensive plan offered to the SEIU employee (among the existing array of plans). However, the City contribution for an employee hired before January 1, 2005 who retires on or after April 1, 2011 shall be the same contribution amount it makes from time to time for active City employees. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 38 of 68 For 2012, the contribution for dependents is 95% (100% in 2013) of difference between the applicable “Employee and One Dependent” or “Family” maximum employer contribution for Active SEIU employees and the maximum monthly employer contribution for “Employee Only” coverage. c) PERS – Health Benefit Vesting For Future Retirees Effective January 1, 2005. The CalPERS vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section 22893 will apply to all SEIU employees hired on or after January 1, 2005. Under this law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit, provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto. After ten years of service credit, each additional year of service credit will increase the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at 20 years’ service credit, the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer contribution. However, the maximum contribution for family members will be 90% of the specified employer contribution. The City of Palo Alto's health premium contribution will be the minimum contribution set by CalPERS under section 22893 based on a weighted average of available health plan premiums. Contingent on agreement with similarly affected bargaining units to eliminate the benefit provided by Government Code section 22893, SEIU agrees to eliminate this benefit and meet and confer over an alternative benefit for employees hired on or after January 1, 2005. d) Coverage for Domestic Partners. Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of State. Employees may add their domestic partner as a dependent to their elected health plan coverage if the domestic partnership is registered with the Secretary of State. Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of State. Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human Resources Department, will be eligible for reimbursement of the actual monthly premium a stipend of two hundred and eighty four dollars ($284.00) per month toward the cost of an individual health plan., not to exceed the maximum monthly City employer contribution for one-party coverage under the CalPERS Health Benefits Program for SEIU members. Evidence of premium payment will be required with request for reimbursement. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 39 of 68 e) At City option during the life of this agreement and if otherwise available, the City may offer an incentive payment in lieu of City-paid dependent or family medical coverage for those employees who voluntarily decline dependent coverage. f)e) Alternative Medical Benefit Program. If a regular employee and/or the employee’s dependent(s) are eligible for and elect to receive medical insurance through any other non-City of Palo Alto employer- sponsored or association-sponsored group medical plan, the employee may choose to elect that alternative medical insurance coverage through the other employer- sponsored or association plan and waives his/her right to the City of Palo Alto’s medical plan insurance coverage for same individuals. Employees electing alternative coverage and waiving City coverage will and receive cash payments in the amount of two hundred eighty-four dollars ($284) for each month City coverage is waived. for which the employee has elected alternative coverage and waived City coverage, effective at the start of the pay period including October 6, 2012. From and including July 1, 2012 through the day before the start of the pay period that includes October 5, 2012 the benefit payable under this Alternative Medical Benefit Program will be the same benefit in effect June 30, 2012. Examples of waivers eligible for this payment are: • Employee waives all applicable City medical coverage; or • Employee is eligible to enroll his or her spouse or domestic partner and waives medical coverage for the spouse or domestic partner; or • Employee has additional eligible dependents and waives family-level medical coverage. Participation must result in a health insurance cost savings to the City and payments per employee shall not exceed a total of two hundred eighty four dollars ($284.00) per month. To participate in the program the employee and dependents must be eligible for coverage under PEMHCA medical plans, complete a waiver of medical coverage form, and provide proof of eligible alternative medical coverage. Payments will be made in the employee’s paycheck beginning the first month following the employee’s completion of the waiver form. Payments are subject to state and federal taxes and are not considered earnings under PERS law. Employees are responsible for notifying the City of any change in status affecting eligibility for this program (for example, life changes affecting dependent’s eligibility for medical coverage through the employee) and will be responsible for repayment of amounts paid by the City contrary to the terms of this program due to the employee’s failure to notify the City of a change in status. g)f) If the State of California or federal government requires the City to participate and contribute toward coverage under any medical plan outside of PEMHCA including City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 40 of 68 but not limited to the Affordable Care Act, the City’s total liability for enrolled employees and retirees and their eligible family members shall not exceed what the City would have paid toward PEMHCA coverage in the absence of such state or federal plan. The City parties will meet and confer with the Union over the impact of such change on matters within the scope of representation before implementing any change. Section 2-Dental Plan. a) The City shall continue to provide a self-funded dental program for the benefit of City employees and their eligible dependents. The City shall pay 100% of the required premiums for the program, except that benefits for regular part-time employees will be prorated as follows: Employees hired after January 1, 2005, who will work less than full time, will receive prorated premium costs for dental benefits in accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule. Part-time employees currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted. b) The City’s Dental Plan provides the following: Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year $2,000 per person. c) Effective July 1, 2001, dental implants in conjunction with one or more missing natural teeth, and removal of implants will be covered as a Major Dental Service at 50% usual, customary and reasonable (UCR). d) Effective 1/1/07 the City will add composite (tooth colored) fillings in dental plan posterior teeth. e) Effective 1/1/07 the City will pay up to $2000.00 for Orthodontia coverage. Section 3 - Vision Care. The City shall continue to provide a self-funded vision care program for the benefit of City employees and their dependents. The City shall pay 100% of the required premiums for the program. The benefits of the vision care program shall continue to be equivalent to $20 Deductible Plan A under the Vision Service Plan. Section 4 - Life Insurance. The City agrees to continue the Basic and Supplemental life insurance plan as currently in effect for the term of this Memorandum of Agreement. Section 5- Long Term Disability Insurance. The City shall continue the long term disability insurance plan currently in effect for the term of this Memorandum of Agreement. For Plan A, the benefit is 66 and 2/3% of pre-disability earnings to the maximum benefit level of $4000.00 per month. Employee coverage is subject to a City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 41 of 68 voluntary payroll deduction of the insurance premium applicable to the first $6,000 of monthly salary, less a credit of $11.17 per month to be paid by the City. For Plan B, the benefit is 60% of pre-disability earnings up to the maximum benefit level of $1800 per month. Employee coverage is subject to a voluntary payroll deduction of the insurance premium applicable to the first $2000 of monthly salary for Plan B. The City will pay premiums in excess thereof. The City will pay up to $17.50 per month toward long term disability insurance premiums for those employees without eligible dependents covered under the health insurance provisions. Section 6 - Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees. For newly-hired regular employees, elected coverage will begin on the first day of the month following date of hire. Section 7 - Dual Coverage. When a City employee is married to another City employee each shall be covered only once (as an individual or as a spouse of the other City employee, but not both) considered as an employee for purposes of health and dental coverage, provided however that neither shall be covered as a dependent of the other, and dependent children, if any, shall be covered by only one spouse. Section 8 - Deferred Compensation. The City shall continue to make available a Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to SEIU employees and will insure reasonable access to Deferred Compensation representatives for all interested employees. Section 9 - Dependent Care Assistance Program. The City shall continue to provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) for employees that complies with Section 125 and 129 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 10 - Training Programs. a) Employees assigned by the City to attend meetings, workshops, or conventions of their professional or technical associations shall have their dues and reasonable expenses paid by departmental funds and shall be allowed to attend such workshops, meetings, and conventions on paid City time. b) City will reimburse for travel, meals and lodging while away from home attending an educational conference that the supervisor authorizes as being job related or which will improve an employee’s skills. Per City Policy and Procedure 1-02, the Pre-Travel Authorization Form should indicate expenses that will be paid. ARTICLE XV - RETIREMENT Section 1 - PERS Continuation. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 42 of 68 A. Pension Group A: 2.7% @ 55. The City will continue the present benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement System 2.7% at 55 for employees hired before July 17, 2010. The Parties acknowledge that employees under this formula hired before July 17, 2010 are subject to a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on their single highest year of compensation earnable as provided by Government Code Section 20042. B. Pension Group B: 2.0% @ 60 – (Single Highest Year). For employees hired on or after July 17, 2010 and before January 1, 2013, and employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 who are not “new members” of CalPERS as defined in the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (often referred to as “Classic” CalPERS members), but before August 1, 2013 or the adoption of the modified 2% at 60 formula described below, whichever is later, the City will continue to provide the 2% at 60 retirement formula (“2% at 60”). The Parties acknowledge that employees under the existing 2% at 60 pension formula are subject to a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on their single highest year of compensation earnable as provided by Government Code section 20042. C. Pension Group C: 2.0% @ 60 – (3 Highest Years). The City shall further amend its contract with CalPERS to provide miscellaneous “Classic” CalPERS members hired on or after August 1, 2013 with the CalPERS retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final compensation at age sixty (60) with a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on the employee’s three consecutive highest years of compensation earnable, as provided by Government Code section 20037. The City may delay the adoption or implementation of the foregoing amendment to the extent it deems such delay necessary to accommodate legal and administrative requirements. In such event, employees hired between and including August 1, 2013 and the day before the amendment’s implementation date will be placed in the 2% of final compensation at age 60 formula with single highest year earnable compensation as described above. D. Pension Group D: 2%@62. Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 meeting the definition of “new member” under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (Gov’t. Code s. 7522 et seq.) shall be subject to all of the provisions of that law, including but not limited to the two percent at age 62 (2%@62) retirement formula with a three year final compensation period. C.E. Section 2 - Employee Share. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 43 of 68 Effective with the first pay period including July 1, 2012 employees under all retirement formulas set forth in Section 1 above in Pension Groups A, B and C described in Section 1 above shall pay 8% if enrolled in the 2.7%@55 benefit or 7% if enrolled in the 2%@60 benefit. Employees in Pension Group D shall pay the employee contribution required by the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, calculated at fifty percent (50%) of the normal cost. Section 4 - Utility Rates Discount. Employees who retire and were employed by the City on or before April 1, 1977, and spouses of deceased employees who were employed by the City on or before April 1, 1977, shall continue reductions in utility rates. All retired employees and spouses of deceased employees shall also have residential privileges at City libraries, refuse disposal area, golf course and swimming pools. ARTICLE XVI - COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PARKING Section 1 - Commute Incentive. Eligible employees may voluntarily elect one of the following commute incentives: Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent work locations. The City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit. New employees hired after April 30, 1994 may initially receive a parking permit for another downtown lot, subject to the availability of space at the Civic Center Garage. Carpool. The City will provide $30 per month (taxable income) to each eligible employee in a carpool for 60% or more of their scheduled work days per month with two or more people. Bicycle. The City will provide $20 per month to eligible employees who ride a bicycle to work. This payment is available through the CCD web site in the form of a special Commuter Check (tax free) for bike equipment, gear or repairs. This benefit cannot be combined with other commute benefits. Walk. The City will provide $20 per month (taxable income) to eligible employees who walk to work 60% or more of their scheduled work days. Transit or vanpool users: Tax-free incentives up to the IRS limit (currently $125/month) are available through the Commuter Check Direct (CCD) web site for employees using Bay Area public transportation or riding in a registered vanpool at least 60% of their scheduled work days. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 44 of 68 The deadline for registering with CCD and placing an online order is 8:59 p.m. on the 7th of each month, for the next month’s benefit. For example, employees wishing to order a transit pass by June must place their online orders with CCD by May 7th. Section 2 – Parking Lot Security – Municipal Service Center. The City will provide fenced and locked parking facilities for Municipal Service Center employees. Procedures will be established for entering and leaving the parking facilities. Section 3 – Bicycle Lockers and Motorcycle Parking. The City will provide bicycle lockers and motorcycle parking areas for City employees at mutually agreeable work locations. ARTICLE XVII - PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS If any non-probationary employee who is required to have a City-provided physical examination not related to workers' compensation programs disagrees with the findings of the City-sponsored physician, he/she may consult with his/her own physician and, if his/her private physician's report conflicts with that of the City physician in terms of ability to work at his/her regular job, then he/she may request an evaluation of his/her problem through a third physician mutually agreed upon by the employee and the City. Cost for such examination will be equally shared and the decision of this physician concerning the continuing ability of the employee to perform his/her work in his/her regular job without exposing himself/herself to further injury as a result of his/her condition shall be the basis for returning the employee to his/her regular work. ARTICLE XVIII – SAFETY Section 1 - Health and Safety Provisions. The City shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt use practices, means, methods, operations and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe, in conformance with applicable safety regulations under the State Labor and Administrative Code sections. The City shall not require or permit any employee to go to or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe. Section 2 - Union Cooperation. Union will cooperate with the City by encouraging all employees to perform their work in a safe manner. Section 3 - Safety Committees and Disputes. Safety committees composed of Management and Union stewards in the below listed organizations will meet no less than six (6) times annually to discuss safety practices, methods of reducing hazards, and to conduct safety training. This shall in no way remove the basic responsibility of safety from Management nor shall it in any way alter City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 45 of 68 the responsibility of the employee to report unsafe conditions directly and immediately to his or her supervisor. Community Services Public Works Water-Gas-Wastewater Field Operations Electric Field Operations Water Quality Control a) A committee composed of one facilities Management representative, one building inspection representative, two Union representatives, and the City Risk Manager will meet as needed concerning safety matters of the Civic Center. b) A ten-member Citywide Union/Management safety committee with equal Union and Management membership will meet upon call to review safety and occupational health standards and practices, discuss overall City safety and health problems, and to act as an advisory group to the departmental safety committees. The committee shall review all departmental safety programs and recommend change where necessary. c) In cases of dispute over safe working conditions the employee will first report such unsafe conditions to his or her supervisor and every attempt will be made to rectify the problem at this level. The employee may contact his or her steward to assist in the resolution of the dispute. If the problem cannot be resolved the Risk Manager will be contacted and the problem will be addressed through the interpretation of the basic safety rules and regulations. Should the problem not be resolved at this step, the grievance procedure will be utilized. Safety grievances shall be submitted at Step III. d) In response to recommendations from the Ergonomics Safety Committee, management will develop training workshops which include information on safe ergonomic work practices. Such workshops will be given at least two times per year. Upon release of Cal/OSHA regulations covering safe workplace ergonomic standards, management will immediately adopt such standards as party of its Injury Prevention Program. ARTICLE XIX - GRIEVANCE and APPEAL PROCEDURE Section 1 - General Provisions. The City and the Union recognize that early settlement of grievance or appeal of disciplinary actions is essential to sound employee-employer relations. The parties seek to establish a mutually satisfactory method for the settlement of employee grievances, or appeal of disciplinary action, or Union grievances as provided for below. In presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action, the City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 46 of 68 aggrieved and/or his or her representative is assured freedom from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal. Release time for investigation and processing a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is designated in Article IV of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Section 2 – Definitions. a) Grievance means an unresolved complaint or dispute regarding the application or interpretation of rules, regulations, policies, procedures, Memorandum of Agreement or City ordinances of resolution, relating to terms or conditions of employment, wages or fringe benefits, excluding however those provisions of this MOA which specifically provide that the decision of any City official shall be final, the interpretation or application of those provisions not being subject to the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. b) Appeal of a disciplinary action means an appeal of any kind of disciplinary action against an employee covered by this Memorandum of Agreement. Discipline is defined as suspensions without pay, reductions in pay, demotion or discharge. Reprimands, transfers, reassignments, layoffs, and negative comments in performance evaluations are not considered discipline. Section 3 - Conduct of Grievance Procedure or Appeal of Disciplinary Action Procedure. a) An aggrieved employee may be represented by the Union or may represent himself/herself in preparing and presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action at any level of review. Grievances or appeal of disciplinary action may also be presented by a group of employees. No grievance or appeal of disciplinary action settlement may be made in violation of an existing merit rule or memorandum of agreement. The Union will be notified prior to the implementation of any settlement made which affects the rights or conditions of other employees represented by the Union. The Union and the Steward will be copied on all written representation unit grievance or appeal of disciplinary action decisions. b) An employee and the representative steward, if any, may use a reasonable amount of work time so long as there is no disruption of work, in conferring about and presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. Requests for release time to prepare grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article IV, Section 3. c) Beginning with the third step of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure, the Chief Steward or Alternate Chief Steward may assist in presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action and may be present at all Step III, and IV grievance or appeal of disciplinary action hearings. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 47 of 68 d) The time limits specified in this Article may be extended by mutual agreement in writing of the aggrieved employee or the Union and the reviewer concerned. e) Should a decision not be rendered within a stipulated time limit, the grievant may immediately appeal to the next step. f) The grievance or appeal of disciplinary action may be considered settled if the decision of any step is not appealed within the specified time limit. g) If appropriate, the aggrieved employee(s) or the Union and the department head may mutually agree, in writing, to waive Step I and/or Step II of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. h) Grievances or appeal of disciplinary action shall be made in writing and submitted on forms provided by the City or on forms which are mutually agreeable to the City and the Union. The written grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall contain clear, factual and concise language, including: (1) the name of the grievant; (2) a statement of the facts upon which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is based, including relevant dates, times and places; (3) specific provisions of this Agreement or specific City rules, policies, or procedures which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action alleges has been violated; (4) a summary of any steps taken toward resolution; and (5) the action the grievant believes will resolve the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. i) Any retroactivity on monetary grievances or appeal of disciplinary action shall be limited to the date of occurrence, except in no case will retroactivity be granted prior to three months before the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action was filed in writing. j) If the grievance is filed by more than one employee in the bargaining unit, the Union may, at its option, convert it to a Union grievance after Step II of the grievance procedure. The Union may also file a grievance in those instances when, under this Memorandum of Agreement, a Union right not directly related to an individual employee becomes the subject of dispute. Union grievances shall comply with all of the foregoing provisions and procedures. k) For purposes of time limits, “working days” are considered to be Monday through Friday, exclusive of City holidays. l) If a mutually agreed solution is reached during any step of this grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure, the agreement shall be placed in writing and signed by the City and the grievant or union. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 48 of 68 m) Upon request of either party, meetings to discuss the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall be held at any step in the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. n) The Parties may mutually agree in writing to an alternate method(s) of delivery for any communication for any notices required pursuant to Article XIX, Grievance Procedure, of a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. Such agreement shall list the designated representative(s) for each party and the appropriate contact information for each Party, and describe the agreed-upon method(s) of communication. All designated representatives shall be copied on any communications. On all transmissions that are intended to conform to a time limit, the sender shall retain proof that the transmission was sent within that limit (for example, confirmation of electronic mail transmission or record of successful fax transmission) in the sender’s file for production if a dispute arises over existence or timing of the transmission. Either Party may designate new representatives or terminate an alternate delivery agreement under this section by providing written notice, which shall be effective immediately, to the other. Section 4 - Grievance and Appeal Procedure. Step I. Informal Discussion. Within fifteen (15) working days after the incident or discovery of the incident on which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is based the aggrieved employee shall present the grievance action to his or her immediate supervisor and attempt to resolve the grievance through informal discussions. Every attempt will be made to settle the issue at this level. Step II. If the grievance is not resolved through the informal discussion in Step 1 or the employee wishes to appeal disciplinary action taken against him/her in the case of a grievance, the employee will reduce the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action to writing and submit copies to the Department head or his or her designee within fifteen (15) working days of the discussion with the immediate supervisor or within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of a final disciplinary action. The Department Head or designee shall have fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of a written grievance or appeal of disciplinary action to review the matter and prepare a written statement. Step III. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved and/or the aggrieved employee is not satisfied with the Step II decision, the grievant or disciplined employee may appeal to the Human Resource Director or his or her designee in writing within fifteen (15) working days of the receipt of the Department Head's response. The written appeal to the Human Resources level shall include a copy of the original grievance or appeal of disciplinary action, the Department Head’s decision at Step II, and a clear statement of the reasons for appeal. Within fifteen (15) working days, after City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 49 of 68 receiving the written appeal, the Human Resource Director shall review the matter and prepare a written statement. If a mutually agreed solution is reached during this process the agreement shall be placed in writing and signed. Step IV. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved at Step III, the aggrieved employee may choose between final and binding resolution of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action through appeal to the City Manager or through appeal to final and binding arbitration. For the term of this Memorandum of Agreement, appeals to final and binding arbitration may be processed only with Union approval. All Step IV appeals must be filed in writing at the Human Resources Department Office within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the Human Resource Director’s decision at Step 3. If the grievant or appellant elects final and binding resolution by the City Manager, the City Manager will choose the methods he or she considers appropriate to review and settle the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. The City Manager shall render a written decision to all parties directly involved within fifteen (15) working days after receiving the grievant/appellant’s appeal. If the grievant/appellant elects final and binding arbitration in accordance with this provision, the parties shall mutually select an arbitrator within 90 days from the date of receipt of the written request for appeal. In the event the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, they shall mutually request a panel of five arbitrators from the California State Conciliation Service or from the American Arbitration Association if either party objects to the State Conciliation Service, and select an arbitrator by the alternate strike method. The arbitrator shall have jurisdiction and authority only to interpret, apply, or determine compliance with the provisions of this Memorandum of Agreement and such Merit System Rules, regulations, policies, procedures, City ordinances, resolutions relating to terms or conditions of employment, wages or fringe benefits, as may hereafter be in effect in the City insofar as may be necessary to the determination of grievances or appeal of disciplinary action appealed to the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be without power to make any decision contrary to, or inconsistent with or modifying in any way, the terms of this Memorandum Of Agreement. The arbitrator shall be without authority to require the City to delegate or relinquish any powers which by State law or City Charter the City cannot delegate or relinquish. Where either party seeks arbitration and the other party claims the matter is not subject to the arbitration provisions of this Memorandum of Agreement, the issue of arbitrability shall first be decided by the arbitrator using the standards and criteria set forth in Article XX and without regard to the merits of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. If the issue is held to be arbitrable, the arbitration proceedings will be recessed for up to five working days during which the parties shall attempt to resolve the grievance. If no resolution is reached, the arbitrator will resume the hearing and hear and resolve the issue on the merits. Copies of the arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City, the aggrieved employee and the Union. All direct costs emanating from the arbitration procedure shall be shared equally by the City and the aggrieved employee or the Union. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 50 of 68 ARTICLE XX - UNSATISFACTORY WORK OR CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION The City has the right to discipline, demote, or discharge employees for cause. Non- probationary employees whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory but not sufficiently deficient to warrant discipline, demotion, or discharge will be given a written notification of unsatisfactory work or conduct and an opportunity to improve. Failure to correct deficiencies and improve to meet standards may result in discipline, demotion, or discharge. Discipline is defined as suspensions without pay, reduction in pay, demotion, or discharge. Reprimands, transfers, reassignments, layoffs, and negative comments in performance evaluations are not discipline and shall not be subject to the requirements of this Article. Section 1 - Preliminary Notice of Discipline. Prior to imposing disciplinary action, a supervisor shall provide an employee with preliminary written notice of the proposed disciplinary action. The notice of proposed disciplinary action must be in writing and served on the employee in person or by registered mail or Fed-Ex . The notice of disciplinary action shall include: a) Statement of the violations upon which the disciplinary action is based; b) Intended effective date of the action; c) Statement of the cause thereof; d) Statement in ordinary and concise language of the act or the omissions upon which the causes are based; e) Copies of any documents or other written materials upon which the disciplinary action was fully or in part based. f) Statement advising the employee of his/her right to appeal from such action, and the right to union representation. g) The date and location of the Skelly meeting and the name of the Skelly Officer Section 2 - Skelly Meeting. The employee shall have the right to respond informally to the charges either verbally or in writing before the discipline is imposed. The employee shall have fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the notice to request this pre- disciplinary administrative review. The employee may request a reasonable extension of the time to respond for justifiable reasons. The Skelly meeting to listen to the verbal responses shall be scheduled with a City representative who is not the manager City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 51 of 68 recommending the discipline (the “Skelly Officer”). The Skelly Officer shall render a final written decision (the “post-Skelly decision”) within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the employee’s response, if any, and shall deliver the post-Skelly decision to the employee by personal delivery or registered mail. The Skelly Officer may sustain, modify, or overturn the recommended disciplinary action. If the Skelly Officer sustains or modifies the disciplinary action, the action may be imposed after the post-Skelly decision is delivered to the employee. Section 3 – Appeals. Appeals of disciplinary action should be processed through the procedures outlined in Steps 2-4 of the grievance appeal of disciplinary action procedure (Article XIX, Section 4.) ARTICLE XXI - NO ABROGATION OF RIGHTS The parties acknowledge that Management rights as indicated in Section 1207D of the Merit System Rules and Regulations and all applicable State laws are neither abrogated nor made subject to negotiation by adoption of this MOA. ARTICLE XXII - OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT The provisions of Article 4.7 of the Government Code of the State of California will govern the determination of incompatible outside employment. ARTICLE XXIII – WORK STOPPAGE AND LOCKOUTS The City agrees that it will not lock out employees, and the Union agrees that it will not engage in any concerted work stoppage or slowdown during the term of this MOA. An employee shall not have the right to recognize the picket line of a labor organization when performing duties of an emergency nature. ARTICLE XXIV PROVISIONS OF THE LAW Section 1. Conformity and Separability of Provisions. This Memorandum of Agreement is subject to all current and future applicable Federal and State laws and Federal and State regulations and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. Should any of the provisions herein contained be rendered or declared invalid by reason of any existing State or Federal legislation, such invalidation of such part or portion of this Memorandum of Agreement shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and they shall remain in full force and effect, insofar as such remaining portions are severable. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 52 of 68 Section 2. Merit Rules and Regulations. This Memorandum of Agreement shall become a part of the City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and Regulations applying to employees assigned to classifications in the SEIU unit. As applied to employees assigned to the SEIU unit, this Memorandum of Agreement shall prevail over any conflicting Merit Rules and Regulations. Section 3 - Resolution. The City and the Union agree by signing this Memorandum of Agreement that the wages, hours, rights and working conditions contained herein shall be continued in full force during the term of this Memorandum of Agreement except as otherwise provided for in the Memorandum of Agreement and shall be binding on both the City and the Union upon ratification by the Council of the City of Palo Alto and upon ratification by Union membership. ARTICLE XXV - COST REDUCTION PROGRAMS During the term of this agreement, the Union will aggressively assist Management in developing cost reduction programs. Such programs may include voluntary reduced hours/pay after this concept is studied by Management, and with such application as may be approved by Management. ARTICLE XXVI – TERM The Term of this Memorandum of Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2012December 1, 2013 and shall expire on December 1, 20135. The Parties agree that they will commence negotiations over a successor to this Memorandum of Agreement no later than one hundred eighty (180) days before its expiration. If, at the time this Memorandum of Agreement would otherwise expire, the parties are continuing to negotiate a successor Memorandum of Agreement, upon mutual agreement the terms and conditions of this Memorandum will continue in effect. EXECUTED: FOR LOCAL 521, SEIU, CTW: FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO: _______________________________ _______________________________ Nick Raisch, SEIU James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 53 of 68 Margaret Adkins, Chapter Chair Kathryn Shen, Chief People Officer Dania Torres-Wong, Chief Negotiator _____ _ Melissa Tronquet, Employee Relations Mgr Joe Saccio, Deputy Director, Administrative Services Nancy Nagel, Sr. Financial Analyst ___________ ______ _______________________________ __________________________________ _______________________________ ___________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 54 of 68 Appendix “A” - Salary Schedule This Appendix will be amended to reflect the following salary increases and market adjustments with the effective dates shown in Appendix A-1, with the final salary schedule as shown in Appendix A-2. effective July 1, 2012 or upon adoption of the MOA, whichever is later, unless otherwise noted: General base wage increase 1.65% Lineperson/CS base increase 5%* Lineperson/CS Lead base increase 5%* Compliance Technician base increase 5%* Compliance Lead base increase 5%* Utility System Operator base increase 5%* Installer-Repairer Lead base increase 2%* Recreation Coordinator base increase 6.8%* Update the job descriptions listed above as presented; add tFor the duration of this agreement, the City shall maintain service retention steps of 2.5% of base for Dispatcher I, II and Lead at the beginning of 7th year and beginning of 10th year. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 55 of 68 APPENDIX B. APPRENTICESHIPS ELECTRICIAN/LINEPERSON - LINEPERSON/CABLE SPLICER APPRENTICE: May lead to Electrician or Lineperson/Cable Splicer positions. The Utilities Department is proposing to formalize the Apprenticeship programs in the Electric Section to develop journey level electricians and lineperson/cable splicers. The following are basic concepts/principles to be incorporated: 1. The administration and operation of the Apprentice Lineperson/Cable Splicer program will be managed by the Apprenticeship Committee which will be selected by the Manager of Electric Operations and comprised of two (2) bargaining unit members designated by Local 521 and two (2) Managers and the Manager of Electric Operations. The Manager of Electric Operations will maintain oversight of the program. The Apprenticeship Program will be subject to review and approval by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards. 2. The journey level position will not be a promotional opportunity for anyone other than the apprentice underfilling the position, as long as that apprentice is successfully progressing through the program. 3. Employees in Electric Operations who qualify will be given first consideration for the apprentice position prior to other City classifications or recruiting from outside the City. 4. A letter of agreement will be entered into by the apprentice and the City identifying the terms and conditions of the program. 5. The program will normally require forty-eight (48) months to complete. 6. Normal progress through the program will be in periodic increments with formal evaluations. 7. Salary steps have been established to bridge the Electrical Assistant classification into the journey level classification. Employees hired into an Apprenticeship position on or before July 1, 2012 will continue to progress through the Apprenticeship steps and into the Lineperson journey rate at the same intervals as existed before July 1, 2012 for other employees in the Apprenticeship Program. This will result in the employee achieving the top step (step 5) of the Lineperson rate after completion of 36 months of the Apprenticeship Program. However, such City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 56 of 68 employees will continue in the Apprenticeship program through the successful completion of the fourth year of the program. Employees hired into an Apprenticeship position after July 1, 2012 will be paid at step 1 of the Apprenticeship range through the first year of the Apprenticeship. At the end of the first year, the employee will progress to step 2. The next step will occur at 18 months after the commencement of the ApprenticshipApprenticeship; the next at 24 months; the next at 30 months; and the next at 36 months. Upon completion of the fourth year following commencement of the Apprenticeship, the employee will be paid at the top step (step 5) of the journey Lineperson wage. Successful completion of the program and movement into the Lineperson classification will not transpire until the employee has fulfilled all of the requirements outlined in the program content description and received the recommendation of the Apprenticeship Committee. 8. A process for initial selection and placement in the program will be established. The City and the Union agree to review or develop job descriptions to better reflect the qualification necessary to attract and retain successful candidates for this program. It is further agreed that the job descriptions will not warrant additional compensation. 9. A procedure for removing an unsuccessful apprentice from the program will be developed. 10. A task force including journey level persons will be assigned to determine the content and approach to specific elements of training. 11. Training will consist of on-the-job (OJT) and after hours elements (study and formal classes). Off-the-job training costs will be funded by tuition reimbursement and departmental funds. Personal time spent in off-the-job training will not be compensated. 12. The apprentice will be under the continuing guidance of an appropriately qualified journey level person during OJT. Such journey level persons will be assigned by Management from among volunteers and will receive no additional compensation. 13. Qualifications/progress will be verified by appropriately kept records. 14. Unless specifically stated otherwise, regular City personnel policies and MOA provisions will apply to the apprenticeship program. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 57 of 68 15. This program may become a conceptual model for apprenticeships in other divisions or departments. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 58 of 68 APPENDIX C. ALTERNATIVE 4/11 WORK SCHEDULE The City and Union have agreed to the following alternative work schedule for Public Safety Dispatchers: 1. The City agrees to maintain a minimum of 18 permanent dispatchers on paid status for this alternative 4/11 work schedule. If the Communications Unit falls below the minimum staffing levels for Communications for more than 120-days (4 months), the City and the Union will meet and confer over whether to continue the 4/11 schedule or revert to another schedule (such as 4/10) until such time as there are 18 permanent dispatchers on paid status. 2. The City agrees that in accordance with FLSA requirements the dispatchers will receive overtime for all hours worked outside of the regularly scheduled work hours of the 4/11 schedule. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 59 of 68 APPENDIX D - DEPT/DIVISION CLASSIFICATION WORKDAY OR WORK WEEK VARIATION Section 1. Exceptions to Standard Workday or Work Week for SEIU Representation Unit: Community Services Arts & Culture Division Volunteer - Coordinator Each week (30 hours): 15 hours of unscheduled time; 15 hours of scheduled time Library Department Coordinator, Library Programs Librarian Senior Librarian Library Specialist Library Assistant Library Associate In a given workweek, staff may work three eight-hour days, one seven-hour day, and one nine-hour day. On a voluntary basis, staff may work five non-consecutive days within seven. Section 2. Rules Governing Flexible Work Hours. These rules and procedures are established pursuant to Article VI, Section 8, and are an application of Article VIII, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Memorandum of Agreement to the classifications of Coordinator, Recreation Programs; Producer, Arts & Sciences Programs; Program Assistant; Theater Specialist, in the Recreation and Arts & Culture Divisions of the Community Services Department, and the classifications of Associate Planner, Building Planning Technician, CDBG Coordinator, Engineer, Executive Secretary, Office Specialist, Planner, Senior Planner and Staff Secretary in the Planning and Community Environment Department. a) Flexible Work Schedule 1. Employees in the covered classification shall be permitted to arrange flexible work schedules with division approval, providing that such schedules shall include forty (40) hours per week. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 60 of 68 2. Standard daily office hours shall be Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Flexible hours may occur for supervision of, and/or attendance at, evening programs, meetings, weekend events, or other programs. 1. Overtime 1. Emergency call-out work shall be defined as overtime work and compensated per standard City practices. 2. If the need arises for overtime work due to an unusual circumstance calling for extra hours or due to a special event, compensation shall be allowed with prior approval of the Director of Recreation, Director of Arts and Culture, or the Director of Planning and Community Environment, and shall be compensated for, as spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement. Section 3. 2080 Plan a) Either the Union or the City may withdraw from the Plan by giving the other party 30 calendar days written notice. In the event of termination of the plan, the covered classifications will return to an 8-hour or other authorized workday as provided under Article VIII, Section 1, of this Memorandum of Agreement. b) Provisions of the 2080 Plan are as follows. To the extent that these provisions are in conflict with other provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement, these provisions will prevail. c) The 2080 Plan or “12 hours per Shift Schedule” is an authorized work schedule for the Electric System Operators and Water Quality Control Plant Operators. 2080 Plan Under this 2080 Plan, each employee's hours of work per year may not exceed 2,240. For scheduling purposes, and subject to the Merit System Rules and Regulations, the employee will be guaranteed not less than 2080 hours per year, or no less than 52 weeks at the normal number of hours worked per week. Any employee covered by the Plan who works up to 2,080 hours per year is compensated for all hours worked at the agreed upon rate. The City must pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 12 in any workday, 56 hours in any work week, or 2080 hours in 52 weeks as the case may be. The rate of overtime will be at time and one-half the employee's regular rate of pay (or current contract overtime rate, if different). Shift Schedule The shift schedules combined must provide full 24-hour, seven (7) days per week coverage for the Utility Control Center and Water Quality Control Plan. The shift City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 61 of 68 schedule shall be a rotating schedule. The Electric System Operators’ shift schedule will reach the equivalent of 40 hours per week in five weeks. The 12-hour shifts begin at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The Relief shift shall begin at 7:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. with lunch taken while working. The shift schedule shall be rotating schedule. The Water Quality Control Plant Operators’ shift schedule will reach the equivalent of 40 hours per week in two weeks. There will be four 12-hour shifts that begin at 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The fifth shift will be a 4/10 shift that begins at 6 a.m. on three days, and at noon on the fourth day. Pay Period Pay periods and workweek for the System Operations will begin Sunday at 7:01 a.m. Pay periods and workweek for the Water Quality Control Plan Operators will begin Saturday at 6:01 a.m. Wages Wages will be based on the City of Palo Alto Compensation Plan, which may vary from time to time as mutually agreed upon. Overtime Under the 2080 Plan, the City will pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 12 in any workday, 56 in any work week, or 2080 in 52 weeks, as the case may be. Overtime will also be paid for hours worked when an employee is called in to work other than their regularly-scheduled shift. The overtime rate of pay will be one and one-half times (or current contract overtime rate, if different) of the employee's regular rate of pay. All overtime worked will be paid to the employee. No compensatory time off for overtime will be allowed with the exception of Water Quality Control Operations. Relief Employees This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. The five Operators share the relief week evenly as they rotate through the five week cycle. Relief employee(s) will be used within the 12-hours shift schedule only when relieving for the System Operators on shift. When not relieving, they will work four eight-hour shifts. When a vacation relief week results in a 36-hour or 48-hour week, the operator working said week shall be paid at one and one-half (1½) time their normal rate of pay for hours that exceed thirty two (32) hours. Relief Duties This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. An employee who is scheduled to perform relief duties shall be available for duty in revolving shifts on any City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 62 of 68 day of the week and may be assigned for relief in any shift without advance notice. Relief employees will be paid standby pay during their relief week. Standby This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. An employee who is on relief duties is covering standby, and will be compensated according to Article VIII, Section 7 (a) of the Memorandum of Agreement. If the relief employee is onvacation or otherwise unavailable for relief duties, the employee(s) on their three or four-day off period will be first on standby. Management reserves the right to utilize Management personnel as Operators on a short-term, as needed basis, if no Operator is available. Filling Vacant Positions If the City elects to fill a vacancy other than by reassignment of the shift or the utilization of prior or succeeding shift personnel, the following procedure shall be used: Employees will be called according to their position on the Pre-arranged Overtime List (POL), with the person with the lowest balance being the first one called. The purpose of the POL is to fairly distribute the available opportunities. If an employee turns down the overtime, that amount will be added to the employee's POL balance. If an employee cannot be contacted for such assignment, the employee will not have any overtime added to their POL account balance. Shift Changes Shift changes caused by scheduled time off or sick leave will not be considered an official change in shift. Maximum Hours Worked No employee shall work more than 18 consecutive hours. Rest Period In a 12-hour workday, employees are entitled to a rest period of 8 consecutive hours after working 6 hours overtime during the 12 hours immediately before the regularly scheduled hours of work on a workday or non-workday. Holidays Employees who begin their day or night shift on an observed holiday will receive overtime premium in accordance with Article X, Section 3 of the Memorandum of Agreement. Employees who work a schedule where a regular day off falls on a holiday will be paid for the hours they would have normally worked on that day. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 63 of 68 Employees working for Water Quality Control Operations may accrue holiday time convertible to vacation. Sick Leave Sick leave will be earned as indicated in Article XII, Section 1(a) of this MOA, and shall be charged in increments of one hour. Floating Days Off Floating holidays will be made available to eligible employees and used pursuant to Article X, Section 5. Vacation An employee's total entitlement will be converted to hours (eight hours = one day). A workday will consist of 12 hours, and employees taking vacation will be charged 12 hours of use. Two week notification is required for any scheduled time off. Only one person at a time may be scheduled off. It is the intention of the City that vacation be taken in units of one work week; however, with approval of his/her supervisor, an employee may use his/her accrued vacation in units of less than one work week. Meals Shift employees shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time, therefore at City expense. Shift Premium Shift premium will be handled in accordance with the current Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Union, Article VIII, Section 8. Jury Duty Time off for jury duty which occurs on a regularly scheduled workday will result in the employee being credited with up to 12 hours worked, for pay purposes. Employees called for jury duty who are working the evening portion of the 12-hour schedule will be placed, for payroll and scheduling purposes, on the day shift for each scheduled day such employee is required to report for jury duty, and will not be required to work the evening 12-hour shift before or after being required to report for jury duty. However, such employee shall return to work on the day shift upon being released from such duty if there are at least four hours remaining prior to the end of the day shift. All other provisions of Article XII, Section 5, of the current Memorandum of Agreement shall apply. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 64 of 68 APPENDIX E. IN-LIEU PREMIUMS 1. For employees in the following operations assigned to work schedules other than Monday through Friday, the calendar day will be considered the holiday for premium pay of in-lieu scheduling purposes: Communications Water Quality Control Animal Control Golf Course Utilities Services Landfill Open Space Electric System Operator 2. If December 24 and 31 fall on Sunday, then the preceding Friday will be designated for purposes of excused time off, except in the case of Community Services staff who may be scheduled to work on Saturday, in which case Saturday will be designated for purposes of excused time off. For Open Space and Library personnel, designation of excused time off will be based on Park and Library schedules and employee preference. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 65 of 68 APPENDIX F. COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION PROMOTIONS 1. Promotional opportunities within the Communications Division will be carried out in compliance with procedures set forth in Article VI, Section 5, of the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU Local 521, except that: a. In sub-paragraph (e) of Article VI, Section 5, the term "seniority" shall be defined as division seniority. b. Division seniority will be calculated from an employee's first day of employment in the division, minus any unpaid leave. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 66 of 68 APPENDIX G. SIDE LETTER REGARDING – RECOVERY OF CITY TRAINING COSTS In recognition of the extended training provided to affected employees, the Parties agree that the City may recover up to thirty percent (30%) of its cost for training employees, hired on or after July 1, 2012, in the Field Services Representative and Lineperson/Cable Splicer Apprentice classifications if the employee voluntarily terminates from the City or abandons his or her City employment before completing three years of City service in the Field Services Representative or Lineperson/Cable Splicer classification. The amount recovered shall reasonably reflect the City’s cost for the training, but will exclude all wage or benefit costs, and will be prorated to reflect the portion of the thirty-six (36) month post-training service period remaining at the time of the employee’s termination. As of July 1, 2012 thirty percent (30%) of the City’s cost for training employees in the Lineperson/Cable Splicer Apprenticeship Program was $30,000 for the three years of the pre-existing three year program. For the Field Service Representative, thirty percent (30%) of the City’s two year training cost was $5,550. The employee will be required to sign an agreement providing for reimbursement to the City as provided above on the form attached hereto as Appendix H. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 67 of 68 APPENDIX H. RECOVERY OF TRAINING INVESTMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between ___________ (“Employee”) and the City of Palo Alto (the “City”), as authorized by the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU Local 521. RECITALS A. The purpose of this Agreement is to limit the City’s risk that it will invest substantial sums in the Employee’s training but potentially lose the value of that training if the employee terminates without rendering substantial journey level service to the City after training. B. The City may require reimbursement from Employee of thirty percent (30%) of the total training cost for _______position, subject to abatement when specified service requirements are met. C. On or about (date) City extended to Employee a conditional offer of employment in the position of _________(position), subject to Employee’s agreement to complete the training necessary to perform the duties of _______ (position), under the terms of the training program. The ______(position) requires [description of training], which as of July 1, 2012 cost the City approximately $ over the course of the training. D. This agreement sets forth the Employee’s agreement to reimburse the City for the City’s investment in the Employee’s training if the employee voluntarily terminates from the City prior to the completion of thirty-six months of service following successful completion of the training. THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the terms set forth below: By signing this agreement, the Employee understands that s/he is bound by agrees to the following terms: 1. ____________________________________ (hereafter “Employee”) agrees that in training Employee for the position of _________________________________________, the City of Palo Alto (hereafter “City”) incurs a total cost of $___________. 2. Employee agrees that amounts recoverable under this agreement do not include Employee wage or benefit costs. 3. Employee agrees that in the event he/she voluntarily terminates or abandons his or her employment from the City prior to the completion of thirty-six (36) City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 Redline Copy July 1, 2012 – December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 68 of 68 months of service following the successful completion of his or her apprenticeship, he/she will repay the City for the cost of training noted above, prorated to reflect the months of service the Employee has completed following successful completion of their training. Employee agrees that for the purpose of this agreement, “time of service” shall begin on the date following the successful completion of the Employee’s training. 4. Employee agrees that the aggregate amount of repayment due will be determined based upon the attached proration table. 5. Employee agrees that repayment shall be due and made in equal monthly installments over the twelve (12) months immediately following termination, on the first of each such month. 6. If Employee does not fully reimburse the City for the amounts due when due, the entire aggregate amount owed will become immediately due, the employee will be deemed in default on this agreement and the City may initiate legal proceedings to collect said amounts. Employee will be responsible for all reasonable collection costs and attorney fees incurred by the City in undertaking such proceedings. The City may elect to forbear taking such action to allow Employee the opportunity to become current on the debt. Such forbearance will not alter the Employee’s default status or adversely affecting the City’s right to later initiate proceedings for recovery pursuant to this Agreement. 7. This agreement shall be effective on the date listed below. DATED: ___________________ ______________________________________ Employee ______________________________________ **Title**, City of Palo Alto CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum of Agreement City of Palo Alto and Service Employees International Unit (SEIU) Local 521 December 1, 2013 – December 1, 2015 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 1 of 76 Table of Contents PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE I – RECOGNITION .................................................................................................. 7 Section 1 - Recognition. .................................................................................................. 7 Section 2 - Protection of Unit ......................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE II - NO DISCRIMINATION ....................................................................................... 7 Section 1 - Discrimination. ............................................................................................ 8 Section 2 - Right to Join the Union. ............................................................................... 8 ARTICLE III - UNION SECURITY ............................................................................................ 8 Section 1 - Notice. . ........................................................................................................ 8 Section 2 - Agency Shop. ................................................................................................. 8 Section 3 - Documentation. ............................................................................................ 9 Section 4 - Payroll Deduction. ....................................................................................... 11 Section 5 - Bulletin Boards and Departmental Mail. .................................................. 11 Section 6 - Access to Union Representatives. ............................................................... 11 Section 7 - Meeting Places. ......................................................................................... 11 Section 8 - Notification to the Union. ........................................................................... 11 General. . .................................................................................................................. 11 Change in City’s Financial Situation. ....................................................................... 12 Vacancies and Temporary Personnel. ..................................................................... 12 Section 9 - Union Logo. ............................................................................................... 12 Section 10 - Public Notice.. ........................................................................................... 12 Section 11 - Use of Agency Reports.. ............................................................................ 12 Section 12 - Job Postings. .............................................................................................. 12 Section 13 - Contracting Out. ........................................................................................ 13 ARTICLE IV - STEWARDS .................................................................................................... 13 Section 1 - Union Officers. ............................................................................................ 13 Section 2 - Number of Stewards. .................................................................................. 13 Section 3 - Release Time. .............................................................................................. 13 Section 4 - Advance Notification Before Leaving Work Location. ................................ 14 Section 5 – Release Time. ........................................................................................... 14 Section 6 - Designated Union Space. . .......................................................................... 14 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 76 Section 7- ...................................................................................................................... 14 ARTICLE V - REDUCTION IN FORCE ................................................................................... 14 Section 1- Attrition. ..................................................................................................... 14 Section 2 - Advance Notice. . ....................................................................................... 15 Section 3 - Order of Layoff. ......................................................................................... 15 Section 4 - Seniority/Bumping Rights. ........................................................................ 15 Section 5 - Re-Employment List. ................................................................................. 16 Section 6 -Sick Leave Balances. ................................................................................... 16 Section 7 - Hourly Employees Performing Duties. ...................................................... 16 ARTICLE VI - PERSONNEL ACTIONS ................................................................................... 16 Section 1 - Probation. ................................................................................................... 17 Section 2 - Personnel Evaluations. …………………………………………………………………….…….17 Section 3 - Personnel Files. ......................................................................................... 17 Section 4 - Release of Information. ............................................................................. 18 Section 5 - Promotional Opportunities. ........................................................................ 18 Posting....................................................................................................................... 18 Internal Candidate Eligibility. . ................................................................................. 18 Selection. ................................................................................................................... 18 Recommended Candidates. ...................................................................................... 19 Seniority. ................................................................................................................... 19 Appointment. .......................................................................................................... 19 Violations. ................................................................................................................ 19 Section 6 - Rights. ........................................................................................................ 20 Section 7 - Apprentice Positions. ................................................................................ 20 Section 8 - Rotation. .................................................................................................... 20 ARTICLE VII - PAY RATES AND PRACTICES ......................................................................... 20 Section 1 - Salary. ........................................................................................................ 20 Section 2 - Step Increases. ............................................................................................ 20 Section 3 - Working Out of Classification. ................................................................... 20 Section 4 - Classification Changes. ................................................................................ 21 Section 5 - Reclassification Requests. ........................................................................... 21 Section 6 - Advance of Vacation Pay. .......................................................................... 22 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 3 of 76 Section 7 - Assignment to a Lead Position. ................................................................. 22 Section 8 - Total Compensation and Survey Database. ................................................ 23 ARTICLE VIII - HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, PREMIUM PAY ........................................... 24 Section 1 - Work Week and Work Day. ....................................................................... 24 Section 2 - Overtime Work. .......................................................................................... 24 Section 3 - Work Shifts. ................................................................................................. 25 Section 4 - City-Paid Meals. .......................................................................................... 26 Emergency overtime meals. .................................................................................... 26 Non-emergency overtime meals. . .......................................................................... 26 Emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. .................................... 27 Non-emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. ............................ 28 Section 5 - Break Periods. ............................................................................................. 28 Section 6 - Clean-Up Time. .......................................................................................... 28 Section 7 - Standby Pay, Call-Out Pay. .......................................................................... 28 Standby Compensation.: ........................................................................................... 28 Minimum Call-Out Pay. ............................................................................................. 28 Section 8 - Night Shift Premium. ................................................................................. 29 Section 9 - Bilingual Premium. .................................................................................... 29 Section 10 - Communications Training Officer (CTO) Compensation. ........................ 29 ARTICLE IX - UNIFORMS AND TOOL ALLOWANCES........................................................... 29 Section 1 - Uniforms. .................................................................................................... 29 Section 2 - Tool Allowance. ........................................................................................... 32 Section 3 - Shoe Allowance. .......................................................................................... 33 Section 4 - Certifications. ........................................................................................... 33 Section 5 - Weather Protection. ................................................................................... 37 ARTICLE X - HOLIDAYS ....................................................................................................... 37 Section 1 - Fixed Holidays. .......................................................................................... 37 Section 2 - Pay for Fixed Holidays. ................................................................................ 38 Section 3 - Work on Fixed Holidays. ............................................................................ 38 Section 4 - Variations in Work Week. ........................................................................... 38 Section 5 - Floating Days Off ......................................................................................... 38 ARTICLE XI - VACATIONS ................................................................................................... 39 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 4 of 76 Section 1 - Vacation Accruals. ..................................................................................... 39 Section 2 - Holiday Falling During Vacation. ............................................................... 39 Section 3 - Illness During Vacation. . ............................................................................ 39 Section 4 - Accrued Vacation Pay for Deceased Employees. ...................................... 40 Section 5 - Effect of Extended Military Leave. ............................................................ 40 Section 6 - Vacation at Termination. .......................................................................... 40 Section 7 - Vacation Cash Out. ...................................................................................... 40 ARTICLE XII - LEAVE PROVISIONS ...................................................................................... 41 Section 1 - Sick Leave. ................................................................................................... 41 Section 2 - Bereavement Leave. .................................................................................. 42 Section 3 - Military Leave. ........................................................................................... 42 Section 4 - Leave Without Pay. ..................................................................................... 42 Disability. ................................................................................................................. 42 Family Leave. ........................................................................................................... 42 Other Leaves. .......................................................................................................... 43 Section 5 - Jury Duty and Subpoenas. ......................................................................... 43 Section 6 - Time Off to Vote. ....................................................................................... 43 Section 7 - Disapproval of Leave of Absence. ............................................................ 43 Section 8 - Personal Business Leave Chargeable to Sick Leave. ................................ 44 Section 9 - Return to Assignment. .............................................................................. 44 ARTICLE XIII - WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ................................................... 44 Section 1 - Industrial Temporary Disability. .................................................................. 44 Section 2 - Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits for Permanently Disabled Employees. 44 ARTICLE XIV - BENEFIT PROGRAMS................................................................................... 45 Section 1 - Health Plan .................................................................................................. 45 Active Employees ...................................................................................................... 45 Health Plan Coverage for Future Retirees Hired Before January 1, 2005. ............... 45 PERS – Health Benefit Vesting For Future Retirees Effective January 1, 2005. ........ 46 Coverage for Domestic Partners. .............................................................................. 46 Alternative Medical Benefit Program. ...................................................................... 46 Section 2-Dental Plan. ................................................................................................... 47 Section 3 - Vision Care. ................................................................................................. 48 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 5 of 76 Section 4 - Life Insurance. ........................................................................................... 48 Section 5- Long Term Disability Insurance. ................................................................... 48 Section 6 - Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees. ...................................... 48 Section 7 - Dual Coverage. .......................................................................................... 48 Section 8 - Deferred Compensation. ........................................................................... 49 Section 9 - Dependent Care Assistance Program. ....................................................... 49 Section 10 - Training Programs. .................................................................................... 49 ARTICLE XV - RETIREMENT ................................................................................................ 49 Section 1 - PERS Continuation. ..................................................................................... 49 Pension Group A: 2.7% @ 55. . ................................................................................ 49 Pension Group B: 2.0% @ 60 – ................................................................................. 49 Pension Group C: 2.0% @ 60 – (3 Highest Years). .................................................. 50 Pension Group D: 2%@62. ........................................................................................ 50 Section 2 - Employee Share. ......................................................................................... 50 Section 4 - Utility Rates Discount. ............................................................................... 50 ARTICLE XVI - COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PARKING ...................................................... 50 Section 1 - Commute Incentive. .................................................................................. 50 Civic Center Parking. ............................................................................................... 51 Carpool. ................................................................................................................... 51 Bicycle. ................................................................................................................. 51 Walk. ....................................................................................................................... 51 Transit or vanpool users: ......................................................................................... 51 Section 2 – Parking Lot Security – Municipal Service Center. ..................................... 51 Section 3 – Bicycle Lockers and Motorcycle Parking. ................................................... 51 ARTICLE XVII - PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS ......................................................................... 51 ARTICLE XVIII – SAFETY ..................................................................................................... 52 Section 1 - Health and Safety Provisions. ................................................................... 52 Section 2 - Union Cooperation. . .................................................................................. 52 Section 3 - Safety Committees and Disputes. ............................................................... 52 ARTICLE XIX - GRIEVANCE and APPEAL PROCEDURE ........................................................ 53 Section 1 - General Provisions. . .................................................................................. 53 Section 2 – Definitions. ................................................................................................. 53 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 6 of 76 Section 3 - Conduct of Grievance Procedure or Appeal of Disciplinary Action Procedure. ..................................................................................................................... 53 Section 4 - Grievance and Appeal Procedure. .............................................................. 56 Step I. Informal Discussion. ..................................................................................... 56 Step II. If the grievance is not resolved .................................................................... 56 Step III. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved ................ 56 Step IV. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved at Step II 56 ARTICLE XX - UNSATISFACTORY WORK OR CONDUCT ...................................................... 58 AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION .............................................................................................. 58 Section 1 - Preliminary Notice of Discipline. ................................................................. 58 Section 3 – Appeals. ...................................................................................................... 59 ARTICLE XXI - NO ABROGATION OF RIGHTS ..................................................................... 59 ARTICLE XXII - OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................ 59 ARTICLE XXIII – WORK STOPPAGE AND LOCKOUTS .......................................................... 59 ARTICLE XXIV PROVISIONS OF THE LAW .......................................................................... 60 Section 1. Conformity and Separability of Provisions. ................................................ 60 Section 2. Merit Rules and Regulations. ..................................................................... 60 Section 3 - Resolution. .................................................................................................. 60 ARTICLE XXV - COST REDUCTION PROGRAMS .................................................................. 60 ARTICLE XXVI – TERM ........................................................................................................ 60 Appendix “A” ..................................................................................................................... 62 Salary Increases and Salary Schedule ............................................................................... 62 APPENDIX B. APPRENTICESHIPS ........................................................................................ 63 APPENDIX C. ALTERNATIVE 4/11 WORK SCHEDULE ......................................................... 65 APPENDIX D - DEPT/DIVISION CLASSIFICATION WORKDAY OR WORK ............................ 66 WEEK VARIATION .............................................................................................................. 66 APPENDIX E. IN-LIEU PREMIUMS ...................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX F. COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION PROMOTIONS ............................................. 72 APPENDIX G. SIDE LETTER REGARDING – RECOVERY OF CITY TRAINING COSTS ............. 73 APPENDIX H. RECOVERY OF TRAINING INVESTMENT AGREEMENT ................................ 75 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 7 of 76 2013-2015 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT City of Palo Alto and Local 521, SEIU, CTW PREAMBLE – This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter “MOA” is entered into by the City of Palo Alto (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Local 521 Service Employees International Union, CTW (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”). For the purposes of this MOA “employee” shall mean an employee assigned to a classification within the SEIU General Employee bargaining unit. This MOA is pursuant and subject to Sections 3500-3510 of the Government Code of the State of California and Chapter 12 of the City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE I – RECOGNITION Section 1 - Recognition. Pursuant to Sections 3500 - 3510 of the Government Code of the State of California and Chapter 12 of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative of a representation unit consisting of all regular full and part-time employees in the classifications listed in Appendix A attached hereto. This unit, shall for purposes of identification, be titled the SEIU General Employees bargaining unit (hereinafter “General Unit”). Section 2 - Protection of Unit. No supervisor will perform the work of an employee in the General Unit provided that there is an employee available who regularly performs such work. This does not preclude a supervisor from performing work of a minor nature or during bona fide emergencies or on a standby status when willing and qualified unit employees do not live within a reasonable response time of their work location. Supervisory personnel shall be called out to perform unscheduled work only when SEIU General unit employees are unavailable to perform such work or in cases of bona fide emergencies as defined in Article VIII, Section 2. In cases of bona fide emergencies, SEIU General Unit employees shall be called out to complete the necessary work after the immediate emergency situation has been reasonably contained. ARTICLE II - NO DISCRIMINATION Section 1 - Discrimination. The City and Union agree that no person employed by or applying for employment hereto shall be discriminated against because of race, religion, creed, political affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, union activity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 8 of 76 Section 2 - Right to Join the Union. The City and the Union agree to protect the rights of all employees to exercise their free choice to join the Union and to abide by the express provisions of applicable State and local laws. ARTICLE III - UNION SECURITY Section 1 - Notice. When a person is hired in any of the covered job classifications, the City shall notify that person that the Union is the recognized bargaining representative for the employee and give the employee a current copy of the Memorandum of Agreement. When a group employee orientation is held for new employees of the bargaining unit, a union representative may make a presentation to such bargaining unit employees for the purpose of explaining matters of representation. The presentation shall not exceed 15 minutes. Section 2 - Agency Shop. a) Every employee in the bargaining unit covered by this Memorandum of Agreement shall: 1) remain a member in good standing of the Union; or 2) pay to the Union a monthly service fee, to be set by the union in accordance with applicable law, in an amount not to exceed the standard initiation fee, periodic dues, and general assessments of the organization; or, 3) in the case of an employee who certifies that he/she is a member of a recognized religion, body or sect which has historically held conscientious objection to joining or financially supporting public employee organizations, pay a charity fee, equal to the service fee, to a non-religious, non-labor charitable fund exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, chosen from one of the following three charitable organizations agreed to by the City and the Union (or any successor organization(s) agreed to by the City and the Union): United Way of California Community Health Charities Environmental Federation of California Union members may declare their intention to terminate Union membership by registered letter, return receipt requested, to the Director of Human Resources and the Union only during the 30-day period between 60 and 90 days before expiration of the MOA. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 9 of 76 b) Employees who are newly hired into or who join the bargaining unit shall elect one of the above payment deduction options by completing and submitting the Employee Election form within thirty (30) calendar days of being hired into a classification covered by this MOA. c) To qualify for deduction of the Charity Fee, the employee must certify to the Union and City that he/she is a member of a bona fide religious body or sect that has historically held conscientious objection to joining or financially supporting public employee organizations. The employee is required to submit to the City and the Union a notarized letter signed by an official of the bona fide religion, body, or sect certifying that person’s membership. Upon request, the City shall provide to the Union a report of payments made by employees that qualify for the Charity Fee option in this subsection. d) The deductions in this Section shall not apply during any period where an employee is in an unpaid status. e) Involuntary Service Fee Deduction Process: The City shall deduct a service fee from the salary of each bargaining unit member who has not authorized a dues deduction, service fee deduction or charity fee in writing within the time stated in this Section, above. The Union certifies that it has consulted with knowledgeable legal counsel and has thereby determined that this involuntary service fee deduction process satisfies all constitutional and statutory requirements. f) Agency shop may be rescinded only in accordance with the provision of state law. g) Indemnification, Defense and Hold Harmless: Union agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and all officials, employees, and agents acting on its behalf, from any and all claims, actions, damages, costs, or expenses including all attorney’s fees and costs of defense in actions against the City, its officials, employees or agents as a result of actions taken or not taken by the City pursuant to the Agency Shop Arrangement. h) Sign-up forms for deduction of union dues, service fees and charity fees shall be provided by the Union and approved by the City. Section 3 - Documentation. The City shall supply the Union with: a) a monthly electronic file of the names, member/fee payer designation, addresses, classifications, monthly base pay, pay period number, Committee on Political Education (COPE) listed separately and last four digits of the Social Security number of all bargaining unit employees except those who file written notice with the City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 10 of 76 Human Resources Department objecting to release of addresses, in which case information will be transmitted without address; and b) a list of bargaining unit new hires, terminations and retirements which occurred during the previous month. The Union shall supply the City, and as applicable, the employees, with documentation required by Government Code Section 3502.5 (f). City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 11 of 76 Section 4 - Payroll Deduction. The City shall deduct Union membership dues, service fees, charity fees, and any other mutually agreed upon payroll deduction, which may include voluntary COPE check-off, from the bi-weekly pay of bargaining unit employees. The dues/fees deduction must be authorized in writing by the employee on an authorization form acceptable to the City and the Union, except as provided in Section 2(e), above. The dues deduction form shall include a check box for those employees who wish the Union to receive notification in the event of unsatisfactory work, conduct, or disciplinary action taken pursuant to Article XX. City shall remit the deducted dues or fees to the Union as soon as possible after deduction. Section 5 - Bulletin Boards and Departmental Mail. The Union shall have access to inter- office mail, existing bulletin boards in unit employee work areas, and existing Union- paid telephone answering device for the purpose of posting, transmitting, or distributing notice or announcements including notices of social events, recreational events, Union membership meetings, results of elections and reports of minutes of Union meetings. Any other material must have prior approval of the Human Resources Office. Action on approval will be taken within 24 hours of submission. The Union may send email messages only for the purposes set forth above. The IT Department will maintain the SEIU list and keep it current. The Union access to email is based on the following conditions: 1) emails to the SEIU list will be copied to the Human Resource Director at distribution; 2) emails to the SEIU list will only be sent by the SEIU Chapter Chair, Vice Chair, Chief Steward (s) or Secretary, 3) a maximum of 52 emails may be sent per year and a maximum of 12 emails may be sent by the SEIU Chapter Secretary. Section 6 - Access to Union Representatives. Representatives of the Union are authorized access to City work locations for the purpose of conducting business within the scope of representation, provided that no disruption of work is involved and the business transacted is other than recruiting of members or collecting of dues, and the representative must notify the Human Resources Department Office prior to entering the work location. Section 7 - Meeting Places. The Union shall have the right to reserve City meeting and conference rooms for use during lunch periods or other non-working hours. Such meeting places will be made available in conformity with City's regulations and subject to the limitations of prior commitment. Section 8 - Notification to the Union. a. General. The Union shall be informed in advance in writing by Management before any proposed changes not covered by this Memorandum of Agreement are made in benefits, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of employment which require meet and confer or meet and consult process. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 12 of 76 b. Change in City’s Financial Situation. Should the City’s financial situation deteriorate and the possibility of layoffs result, the City Manager will give prior notice to and consult with the Union prior to recommending any layoffs to the City Council. c. Vacancies and Temporary Personnel. The City agrees to notify SEIU Local 521 in writing when any irregular, temporary, hourly, provisional, special or extra help employee who consistently performs work typical of the SEIU Local 521 bargaining unit exceeds 1,000 hours of work within a 18-month period. The City agrees to notify SEIU Local 521 in writing when any position covered by this agreement is left vacant for more than 60 days. Through a separate meet and confer process, the City and Union will develop a way to convert long term, ongoing temporary-hourly positions to regular status. The City and Union will meet and confer regarding wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Section 9 - Union Logo. All materials and documents produced on Itek and metal plates, by the City print and reproduction shop, shall carry the Union label on the inside of covers or title pages in accordance with customary printing trades practices. Section 10 - Public Notice. The City shall make available to the Union, in a timely manner, copies of all City Council meeting agendas, minutes and schedule of meetings. These materials will be available online via the City’s website. Section 11 - Use of Agency Reports. Upon request, the City shall provide to the Union reports by department on the use of agency temporaries filling representation unit vacant positions, or doing work similar to that of representation unit classifications. Section 12 - Job Postings. The City shall incorporate the requirements of this Article when publicizing job announcements for classifications covered by this Memorandum of Agreement. // // // City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 13 of 76 Section 13 - Contracting Out. The City through the labor management process will kept the Union advised of the status of the budget process, including any formal budget proposal involving the contracting out of SEIU bargaining unit work traditionally performed by bargaining unit members at least thirty (30) days prior to the release of the City Manager’s proposed budget. The City will notify the Union in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to contracting work which has been traditionally performed by bargaining unit members, where such contracting will result in layoff or permanent reduction in hours. Within the ninety (90) day period of contracting out, both parties may offer alternatives to contracting out and meet and confer on the impact of such contracting out of a bargaining unit employee work. The City will notify the Union in writing when contracting out work which has been traditionally performed by bargaining unit workers, where such contracting out is expected to replace a laid off bargaining unit position that has been eliminated within ninety (90) days prior to the date of the planned contract work. When feasible, the City will provide such notice prior to the beginning date of the planned contract work. The City will meet with the Union upon request to discuss alternatives. This provision does not apply to the filling of temporary vacancies of twelve (12) months or less duration. The City will provide the Union with a biannual list by department of all contract workers or vendors who are contracted by the City who perform work for the City. The City will make a reasonable effort to identify the names of the vendors on the list and the nature of the work provided by each vendor. ARTICLE IV - STEWARDS Section 1 - Union Officers. The Union agrees to notify the Director of Human Resources of those individuals designated as Union officers and stewards who receive and investigate grievances and represent employees before Management. Alternates may be designated to perform steward functions during the absences or unavailability of the steward. Section 2 - Number of Stewards. The number of stewards designated by the Union at a given time shall not exceed thirty-five (35). Section 3 - Release Time. It is agreed that, as long as there is prior notice as specified below to the Supervisor with no disruption of work, stewards shall be allowed reasonable release time away from their work duties, without loss of pay, to represent a unit employee or employees on grievances or matters within the scope of representation, including: a) A meeting of the steward and an employee, or employees of that unit related to a grievance. b) A meeting with Management. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 14 of 76 c) Investigation and preparation of grievances. Grievances may be transmitted on City time. All steward release time shall be reported on time cards. Section 4 - Advance Notification Before Leaving Work Location. The Union agrees that the steward shall give no less than one (1) full business day advance notification to his/her supervisor before leaving the work location, except in those cases involving an unforeseeable circumstance that requires immediate union representation where advance notice cannot be given or when the relevant supervisor otherwise allows less notice. A supervisor may deny such a request for release from duty if the steward is needed to ensure real time delivery of services that the steward provides for the public or internal City customers and another employee who normally provides such services is not available on a straight time basis to relieve the steward, or in a bona fide emergency. If such denial occurs, the union may request the release of another of its designated stewards to perform the representation duties involved. Such request shall be processed in accordance with the terms set forth in this section except that the requirement for a full business day advance notice to the replacement representative’s supervisor shall not apply. Nothing herein shall preclude the City from rescheduling a meeting it has scheduled, to facilitate the attendance of a steward who has requested release if, in the City’s judgment, such change can be undertaken without undermining the objectives of the meeting. Section 5 – Release Time. Three Union officers, who are City employees, shall be allowed a reasonable amount of release time off for purposes of meeting and conferring or meeting and consulting on matters within the scope of representation. All such time will be reported on timecards. Section 6 - Designated Union Space. Union stewards may utilize space in assigned desks for storage of Union materials. In the event stewards are not assigned desks the City will provide locker or other mutually agreeable space for storage of Union materials. Section 7- Union Officers and Release Time. Six union officers, who are City employees shall be allowed a reasonable amount of release time off for monthly Labor/Management Meetings. ARTICLE V - REDUCTION IN FORCE Section 1- Attrition. In the event of reductions in force, they shall be accomplished wherever possible through attrition. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 15 of 76 Section 2 - Advance Notice. When the City determines that layoffs are imminent resulting from reduction in force within the representation unit, the City will give the Union such advance notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. The notice will indicate the departments and divisions which will be affected and the circumstances requiring the layoffs. The City will furnish the Union with a current representation unit seniority list with notice of layoff. Section 3 - Order of Layoff. If the work force is reduced within a department, division, or office for reasons of change in duties or organization, abolition of position, shortage of work or funds, or completion of work, employees with the shortest length of service will be laid off first so long as employees retained are fully qualified, trained, and capable of performing remaining work. Length of service for the purpose of this article will be based on current service hire date of record in a regular classification with no adjustment for leaves of absence. Length of service ties will be determined by lot in a method agreeable to both parties. Employees laid off due to the above reasons will be given written notice at least thirty days prior to the reduction in force. A copy of such notice will be given to the Union. Such employees shall be offered priority employment rights to regular positions which are requisitioned and for which the employees are qualified for a period beginning with notification and ending sixty (60) days following the reduction in force. Employees transferred or reclassified under this section will be assigned to the step in the new classification salary range closest to the employee's salary range at the time of reclassification. Employees laid off pursuant to this section shall receive the balance of all regular City compensation owed and severance pay equal to one month’s salary at the employee’s final rate of pay at termination. This does not include any amounts payable under Article V, Section 6, or PERS contribution refunds, if any. Section 4 - Seniority/Bumping Rights. Employees identified for layoff who have seniority (bumping) rights to their current or previously held classifications within the representation unit must declare their intention to exercise these rights in writing and submit to the Human Resources Department within seven (7) working days after written notification of layoff, otherwise bumping rights will automatically terminate. Bumping may occur within the representation unit, only to the least senior incumbent of the current or a previously held classification. To bump, the employee must be fully qualified, trained, and perform all work in the position. For purposes of this section of the Agreement, the term "working days" shall mean Mondays through Fridays, exclusive of holidays. // City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 16 of 76 Section 5 - Re-Employment List. The names of employees laid off or who through bumping changed classification in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be entered upon a re-employment list in seniority order. The employee with the greatest seniority on the re-employment list, including those who exercised their bumping rights, shall be offered reinstatement first. Such notice of reinstatement shall be in writing with a copy to the employee, Union and Chapter Chair. If a laid off employee waives reinstatement or fails to respond within ten (10) working days of receipt of the notice, the employee shall be removed from the reemployment list. The person with the highest seniority including those who exercised their bumping rights on a re- employment list for a particular classification when a vacancy exists in that classification shall be offered the appointment. Names shall be carried on a re-employment list for a period of two (2) years from the date of separation from City services or change of classification through bumping. Upon re-employment within the two-year period, the employee's hire date of record at the time of layoff will be reinstated. Section 6 -Sick Leave Balances. Employees laid off pursuant to Section 2 who are reinstated to a regular position within sixty (60) days shall retain the sick leave balance they had at the time of layoff, unless they have received a sick leave payoff in accordance with Article XII. Section 7 - Hourly Employees Performing Duties. No representation unit employee will be laid off or remain on a re-employment list when hourly employees are performing substantially all the duties of the classification of the employee receiving a layoff notice or on a re-employment list. This provision shall not be applied to hourly positions which have been traditionally used for seasonal and part-time work. // // // City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 17 of 76 ARTICLE VI - PERSONNEL ACTIONS Section 1 - Probation. Each new regular or part-time employee shall serve a probationary period of twelve (12) months, commencing with the first day of his/her employment. The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the effective adjustment of a new employee to his/her position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the acceptable standards of work. At least one written performance appraisal will be given each probationary employee on or before expiration of the probationary period. This appraisal will be given approximately at the end of the sixth month. In the event of termination prior to successful completion of the probationary period, such terminated employee shall be given written notice of his/her termination with the reasons for the termination stated therein. The Human Resources Department shall, upon request, afford an interview in a timely fashion to the terminated employee for discussion of the reasons for termination. The employee may, upon request, be accompanied by a Union representative. The interview shall not be deemed a hearing nor shall it obligate the City to reconsider or alter the termination action. The parties agree that probationary employees shall have all rights under this Memorandum of Agreement, including full and complete access to the grievance procedure, save and except for instances of suspension, demotion or termination. Section 2 - Personnel Evaluations. Personnel evaluations will be given to employees as scheduled by Management. Personnel evaluations are not appealable through the grievance procedure but, in the event of disagreement over content, the employee may request a review of the evaluation with the next higher level of Management, in consultation with the Human Resources Department. For purposes of this review, the employee may be represented by the Union. Decisions regarding evaluation appeal shall be made in writing within ten (10) working days following the review meeting. Section 3 - Personnel Files. Records of all disciplinary actions shall be kept in the central personnel file. Employees shall be entitled to sign and date all action forms in their personnel files. Employees are entitled to review their personnel files upon written request or to authorize, in writing, review by their Union representatives. An employee or the Union shall be allowed, upon reasonable request, copies of materials in an employee's personnel file relating to a grievance. Records of disciplinary actions, including references in a performance evaluation, shall be removed from a personnel file upon written request by the employee or in the normal process of file review after a period of three years, or sooner as mutually agreed by Management and the employee. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 18 of 76 Section 4 - Release of Information. The City will only release information to creditors or other persons upon prior identification of the inquirer and acceptable reasons for the inquiry. Information then given from personnel files is limited to verification of employment, length of employment and verification and disclosure of salary range information. Release of more specific information may be authorized by the employee. Section 5 - Promotional Opportunities. a. Posting. Promotional opportunities for classifications within the representation unit will be posted for at least ten (10) working days (Monday through Friday) prior to selection. Outside recruitment may be used for promotional openings and may begin at the time of posting, or any time thereafter. If, however, there are three or more qualified internal candidates within the department where the vacancy occurs, and those candidates successfully complete the selection process, outside candidates will not be considered. b. Internal Candidate Eligibility. All non-probationary representation unit employees are eligible to apply for posted promotional opportunities, except that Management may waive this requirement for all probationary employees within the department where the promotional opportunity occurs. c. Selection. The selection procedure for each promotional opening will be determined and administered by the Human Resources Department in consultation with the requisitioning department. Selection procedure and job description information will be available at the Human Resources Office at the time of posting. Efforts will be made to standardize tests and procedures where standardization is feasible and appropriate. Any tests used shall be reasonably predictive of success in the classification, and tests not be biased with respect to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, political affiliation, color, national origin, ancestry, or age. Selection procedures may include any or all of the following phases: 1) Application. Both inside and outside candidates must complete a City of Palo Alto application form specified by the Human Resources Department. Applications must be submitted to the Human Resources Office. 2) Screening. Applications will be screened by the Human Resources Department to ascertain whether candidates meet minimum requirements as outlined in the job description. Internal candidates deemed not to meet minimum requirements may submit additional City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 19 of 76 qualification information writing within three working days of notification of requirement deficiency. 3) Performance Testing. Performance tests, such as typing, machinery or vehicle operation, skills demonstration, physical agility, etc., will be qualifying. Pass-fail points will be announced in advance for qualifying tests. If requested in writing prior to the test, performance test may be witnessed by Union steward. 4) Written Tests. Written achievement or aptitude tests will be qualifying. Pass-fail points will be announced in advance for qualifying tests. 5) Interviews, Appraisals. Interviews may be conducted individually or by interview boards and will be qualifying. Interview boards shall be composed of qualified and unbiased people. Where interview boards are used, Management will include at least one bargaining unit employee on each board. If individual interview or an interview board is used, a majority of the individuals or board members must recommend a candidate in order for the candidate to qualify for appointment. Performance appraisals written by candidates' supervisors may be used as indicated in the selection procedure. d. Recommended Candidates. Candidates who successfully complete all phases of the selection procedure will be recommended to the appointing authority. e. Seniority. Seniority, for purposes of this Article, will be based on current service hire date of record in a regular classification with no adjustment for leaves of absence. Seniority ties will be determined in favor of the employee with the lowest employee number last four digits. Exceptions to this subsection may be established by mutual agreement on a departmental or divisional basis. Such exceptions are listed in Appendix G. f. Appointment. The appointing authority will make appointments from among those recommended candidates who are most qualified as determined by objective review of selection procedure results and background materials. Where appointments are made from only internal candidates who are equally qualified as determined by objective review of selection procedure results and past performance, seniority will be the determining factor in promotional appointments. g. Violations. Any violation of this Article may be appealed to the Human Resources Director in Step III of the grievance procedure. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 20 of 76 Section 6 - Rights. Unit employees applying for a vacant equal or lower paying position shall have the same rights as unit employees applying for a promotion. Section 7 - Apprentice Positions. (a) The City shall establish apprentice positions wherever feasible. Length of apprenticeship, type of training, and pay levels shall be by mutual agreement. Where possible, apprentice positions will underfill regular positions so that incumbents may automatically progress to the classification for which they are training upon successful completion of apprenticeship. The City will meet and confer with the Union before adding any new apprenticeship programs during the term of this agreement. All apprenticeship programs are listed in Appendix B. Section 8 - Rotation. In assigning employees to regular or special shifts, transfer, standby, overtime, or vacation selection, ability to perform the work, length of service and/or equitable rotation shall determine the assignments. In accordance with this provision, more definitive rules may be arranged by mutual agreement of the Union and individual City departments. ARTICLE VII - PAY RATES AND PRACTICES Section 1 - Salary. The base salary rates and ranges for job classifications covered by this bargaining unit shall be increased as set forth in Appendix A-1 to reflect salary increases for all positions in the unit and market adjustments to positions identified in the total compensation survey as under-market based on the survey results for base, cash, insurance and the normal cost of retiree medical, with total rates and ranges as set forth in Appendix A-2 (Salary Schedule) attached hereto. Section 2 - Step Increases. Merit advancements from the first salary step to the second salary step shall be granted upon successful completion of probation and between second and subsequent steps at one-year intervals, if the affected employee has demonstrated continued improvement and efficient and effective service. For the purpose of determining step time requirements, time will commence on the first day of the month coinciding with or following entrance onto a salary step. Step increases shall be effective on the first day of the payroll period in which the time requirements have been met. Section 3 - Working Out of Classification. The term "working out of classification" is defined as a Management authorized full-time assignment to a budgeted position on a temporary basis wherein all significant duties are performed by an individual holding a classification within a lower compensation range. Pay for working out of classification shall be as follows: a. Employees appointed to an "out of classification" will receive acting pay within the range of the higher classification beginning the first day of the assignment City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 21 of 76 and shall be paid for all hours worked in the higher classification provided employee works a minimum of four (4) hours. Where out-of-class appointments last for more than 90 days, and whenever feasible, out-of-class appointment will be rotated among qualified interested employees in the work group. Employees will receive 5% premium pay for all assigned out of class pay for work within SEIU Classifications with the exception of lead assignments where the out of class pay will result in a 7% premium pay. Out-of-classification provisions do not apply to work assignments performed in connection with specific predetermined apprenticeship or training programs, or declared conditions of public peril and/or disaster. Section 4 - Classification Changes. a. During the course of this agreement, the Union and affected employees shall be notified in advance of any contemplated changes in classification description, wage range or steps. Such changes shall be subject to the meet and confer process. Such meet and confer process shall be concluded within no more than thirty (30) days following delivery of the City’s notice to the Union. If the Union and the City cannot reach agreement on the appropriate pay level from a job so reclassified, the Union may, within ten (10) City business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer process described above by delivery of written notice to the Human Resources Director, refer the dispute over the proposed wage range or steps to arbitration at Step IV of the Grievance Procedure set forth at Article XIX of this Memorandum of Agreement. Section 5 - Reclassification Requests. a. An employee or his/her representative may request in writing a re-evaluation of his/her job based on significant permanent changes in job content or significant discrepancies between job content and classification description. The request must be in writing, contain justification and may be made only on an annual basis during the period of September 10 through October 10. A statement by management that a job reevaluation request will be submitted with the departmental budget does not relieve an employee from the responsibility of submitting his/her own request during this period. The Human Resources Director or his or her designee will initially respond to such requests within ninety (90) calendar days by notice to the employee and the union; however, this timeline may be extended if necessary. Such response shall include any reclassification to a different classification or changes in description that the City believes are warranted and any related changes in applicable pay range or steps. If meetings are held, the employee may request representation. If a reclassification is approved and results in an increase in salary, it shall be retroactive to the date the Employee or Union filed the request for the reclassification. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 22 of 76 b. If the employee or Union disagrees with the accuracy of the description of duties resulting from the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section or with the wage range or steps assigned by the City as a result of the study, the employee or Union may, within ten (10) City business days of delivery of notice of such determination, appeal such decision under step IV of Article XIX, Grievance Procedure. c. In a dispute under Section 4(a) or section 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall render his or her decision on the appropriate wage range or steps within twenty-one (21) days after the initial hearing date. The same time line will be observed for disputes over the accuracy of the revised classification description. The parties will notify the arbitrator of this deadline at the time of the arbitrator’s selection. In reaching a decision on wage range and steps under Section 4(a) or 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall base his or her award on the factors traditionally taken into account in the establishment of compensation. When deciding a dispute over the accuracy of the revised classification description under section 5(b) above, the arbitrator shall identify the modifications of the pre-existing classification necessary to accurately reflect the permanent changes, if any, that have been implemented. Upon receipt of the arbitrator’s award, the City shall implement the revised classification and wage range or steps as provided in the award except as provided under subsection 5(c) of this section below. Notwithstanding an arbitrator’s award pursuant to any appeal process, the City retains the right to forego implementing the changes and the proposed changes shall revert to the status quo as it existed before those changes in duties occurred or were proposed. d. An employee may submit a request for reclassification for the same classification no more than once every twenty-four (24) months. Section 6 - Advance of Vacation Pay. Vacation pay shall be made available in advance of regular payday, provided that employee requests such advance in writing to the Finance Department at least two weeks prior to his/her vacation date. The employee's supervisor must verify vacation date on the request. Section 7 - Assignment to a Lead Position. All vacancies in lead positions shall be filled in accordance with Article VI, Section 5. The pay range for the lead position shall be seven percent above the pay step of the highest paid employee on the crew. Departmental exceptions for filling lead positions on a rotational basis for training and development purposes may be arranged by mutual agreement of the Union and individual City departments. Current exceptions are listed in Appendix C. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 23 of 76 Section 8 - Total Compensation and Survey Database. a. Management and the Union have agreed to a compensation survey database structure which identifies specific benchmark classifications for job families, classifications within the job families of each benchmark classification, survey agencies and survey classification matches. Survey Cities include: Alameda Hayward San Mateo Berkeley Mountain View Santa Clara Daly City Redwood City S. San Francisco Fremont San Jose Sunnyvale If the employer list will not permit the production of a survey report that includes data from at least four (4) employers that employ employees in a classification comparable to the classification surveyed by the City, neither party is precluded from bringing forward information on other employers in the relevant recruitment area that employ workers in a comparable classification so that data from at least five (5) surveyed employers will be included in the study, if feasible. Such employer may include any public or private employer. The database is intended to provide one source of information concerning how the compensation paid to employees in bargaining unit job classifications compares to that paid by other employers. The City will update the survey database and send the Union a copy six weeks before expiration of this agreement. This survey will be considered in connection with special adjustment proposals in successor agreement negotiations. By agreeing to a survey database, neither Union nor Management is under obligation to propose or agree to special adjustments. Section 9- Direct Deposit Beginning in the first pay period following union ratification and adoption of this Agreement by the City Council, the City shall directly deposit all paychecks for Unit employees in a financial institution of the employee’s choice that accepts direct deposits and does not charge the City a fee(s) for direct deposit service. In the event that the employee fails to designate a financial institution for direct deposit of his or her payroll check, the employee shall pick up the check personally in the City’s Administrative Services Department office on the next business day following payday at a pickup time designated by Administrative Services. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 24 of 76 ARTICLE VIII - HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, PREMIUM PAY Section 1 - Work Week and Work Day. The standard workday for regular employees shall be eight hours to be worked within a maximum of nine hours (five-day work week) or ten hours to be worked within a maximum of eleven (four-day work week) or nine hours to be worked within a maximum of ten for four days with a fifth day of four hours (four and one-half day work week); or, within a fourteen-day period, nine hours to be worked within a maximum of ten hours for one day and eight hours to be worked within a maximum of ten hours for one day, with the work week scheduled to begin so that forty hours are worked within each seven days of the fourteen-day period (9/80 plan, with forty-hour work weeks), or any other schedule that results in a 40-hour work week, or fits within the parameters of an FLSA 2080 Plan. The "9/80 plan" may not be used in any application that requires entitlement to FLSA overtime for working the regular work week. With the exception of the "9/80 plan" as described above and the 4/11 Dispatcher Plan, the standard work week shall be forty hours to be worked within five consecutive days. Additional exceptions to the above are listed in Appendix D. The Union shall be notified of any further exceptions to this section in accordance with Article III, Section 8. The City and the Union agree that the availability of alternate/flexible work schedules is a valuable benefit in that they promote job satisfaction while also reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. During the term of this agreement, employees, subject to the conditions of their job assignment, may propose an alternate work schedule as listed under this Section. Such proposals must be made to the department head through the immediate supervisor. Serious consideration will be given to the feasibility and productivity of such proposals, however Management retains the right to determine scheduling needs. Section 2 - Overtime Work. a. Overtime work for all unit employees shall be defined as any time worked beyond the standard workday or beyond the standard work week. Emergency overtime is defined as unplanned overtime work arising out of situations involving real loss of service or property or personal danger. Emergency overtime does not include: i. overtime work resulting from personnel replacement for purposes of maintaining scheduled staffing; ii. overtime work which is planned in advance; iii. overtime work resulting from being held over for up to four hours to finish work performed during the regular shift. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 25 of 76 b. Compensation to employees working overtime will be in the form of additional pay at the rate of one and one-half times. Two times regular rate will be paid for billable customer convenience overtime and emergency overtime as defined in subsection (a) above) the employee's applicable hourly salary with the exception that an employee may request and, upon approval, be granted compensatory time off at the rate of one and one-half hours for each hour of overtime worked, subject to the limitations of applicable state and federal laws. In the event compensatory time off is used as the method of compensating for Overtime, the time off will be taken prior to the end of the quarter following the quarter in which the overtime has been worked. In the event the employee is denied this provision, he/she will be compensated in pay for such time at the appropriate rate specified by these sections. Or at the employee's option, the earned compensatory time will be added to the employee's vacation balance. c. All time for which pay is received shall count as hours actually worked for the computation of regular overtime pay; however, non-productive time will not be included in computation of any additional FLSA premiums. d. When an employee is required to work 6 or more hours of overtime (either emergency or pre-arranged) during the 16 hour period immediately preceding the beginning of the employee’s regular shift on a workday, the employee shall be entitled to an eight-hour rest period before returning to work. If the rest period overlaps into the second half of the work day, the employee may be given (with supervisor approval) the remaining time off (up to a maximum of 3 hours) at the straight time rate of pay. Any portion of the rest period falling within the employee’s work shift will be considered as hours worked and compensated at the straight time rate. e. If non-emergency overtime is canceled without at least 40 clock hours notice, the City shall pay the affected employees two (2) hours' pay at time and one- half. f. Employees working overtime who are too fatigued to continue or return to work, for safety reasons will be released from duty without compensation. Section 3 - Work Shifts. All employees shall be assigned to work shifts with scheduled starting and quitting times. Should conditions necessitate a change in starting and quitting times, the Union will be notified ten (10) working days in advance and permitted to discuss such changes with the City. This, however, shall not preclude the City's right to effect schedule changes dictated by operational necessity. This section does not apply to overtime scheduling. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 26 of 76 Section 4 - City-Paid Meals. a. Emergency overtime meals. For purposes of this section, emergency overtime is defined as unplanned overtime arising out of situations involving real loss of service or property or personal danger. The City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner and will provide meals in the following emergency overtime situations: 1) When an employee is called back and is on duty for a period of three consecutive hours, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. OR, 2) When an employee is held over on duty so that his/her overtime assignment extends two hours after shift end, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. OR, 3) When an employee is called out two hours or more before a regularly scheduled day shift and works the regularly scheduled shift, he/she will be entitled to breakfast and lunch. Lunches will be consumed on employee's own time. No in-lieu pay will be made for meals not taken. This sub-section does not apply if already covered in Section 4(a)(1) above. 4) When recalled two hours or less after the end of a regular shift, unless assigned to standby. b. Non-emergency overtime meals. The City will provide meals for personnel assigned to non-emergency overtime work where the assignment extends two hours after the regular or overtime shift end and at intervals of five hours thereafter. c. With regard to (a) and (b) above, the City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner. Where possible, the City will arrange purchase orders at mutually agreeable restaurants. The time necessarily taken to consume a meal provided under this section shall be considered as time worked to a maximum of one hour, except as noted in (a) (3). d. With regard to (a) and (b) above, in the event an employee is to be provided a meal or meals pursuant to this section and such meal(s) are not provided due to working conditions, the employee shall have the option of receiving for each meal not provided an additional one hour of overtime compensation in lieu of City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 27 of 76 such meal. This hour will not be considered as time worked or part of the rest period, but will be applied to qualify for the rest period. e. Emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. The Police Department will provide meals to employees in an emergency overtime situation involving real or potential loss of service or personal danger. 1) When an employee is called back and is on duty for a period of three consecutive hours, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. 2) When an employee is held over on duty so that his/her overtime assignment extends two hours after shift end, and thereafter at intervals of five hours, but not more than six hours, until the continuous overtime assignment ends. 3) When an employee is called out two hours or more before a regularly scheduled shift. The employee will be entitled to two meals, the second meal will be consumed on the employee's own time. No in-lieu pay will be made for meals not taken. 4) When recalled two hours or less after the end of a regular shift, unless assigned to standby. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 28 of 76 f. Non-emergency overtime meals for Public Safety Dispatchers. The Police Department will provide meals to employees in non-emergency situations where the assignment extends more than two hours after the regular or overtime shift end and at intervals of five hours thereafter. If the City is unable to provide a meal, the City agrees to reimburse for meals in the amount of $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $20 for dinner. This policy only applies when an employee is held over, either voluntary or mandated, on duty beyond a scheduled regular or overtime shift. Section 5 - Break Periods. All employees shall be granted a break period or coffee break limited to 15 minutes during each four hours of work. Departments may make reasonable rules concerning break period scheduling. Break periods not taken shall be waived. Section 6 - Clean-Up Time. All employees whose work causes their person or clothing to become soiled shall be provided with reasonable time before lunch and at shift end for wash-up purposes. Section 7 - Standby Pay, Call-Out Pay. a. Standby Compensation. Employees performing standby duty shall be compensated at the daily rates established below: Monday through Friday $70 Saturday, Sunday, Holidays $100 b. Minimum Call-Out Pay. Employees not otherwise excluded from receiving overtime pay who are called out to perform work shall be compensated for at least two hours' pay from the time of the call-out for each occurrence at the appropriate overtime rate. The two-hour minimum does not apply to employees called out to work while earning pay for being in a standby status unless called out to perform billable customer convenience work in which case the two-hour minimum will apply. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 29 of 76 Section 8 - Night Shift Premium. Night shift premium of $1.44 per hour shall be paid to employees for work performed between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. This premium shall not apply to an employee whose schedule does not qualify for shift differential who requests an earlier scheduled start time that would otherwise qualify the employee for the premium. A minimum of two hours must be worked between 6 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. to qualify for the premium. Employees who regularly work night shifts shall receive appropriate night shift premiums, relating to night shift hours worked, in addition to base pay for holidays, sick leave and vacation. Night shift premium does not apply for overtime situations unless overtime is approved to replace an employee who would have otherwise received a night shift premium. Section 9 - Bilingual Premium. $35 per pay period shall be paid to a bilingual employee whose abilities have been determined by the Human Resource Director as qualifying to fill positions requiring bilingual speaking and/or writing ability when the employee regularly performs such duties. The Human Resource Director will determine the number, timing, location and duration of the assignments receiving the additional pay provided herein and which languages are needed. Sign language shall be recognized as a bilingual skill under this Article. Disagreements over the designation of positions will be referred first to the Labor Management Committee. If a disagreement still exists it will be referred to the Grievance Procedure. Section 10 - Communications Training Officer (CTO) Compensation. Public Safety Dispatchers and Chief Public Safety Dispatchers identified by Management to work as a Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) certified CTO will be compensated at a premium pay rate of five (5) percent. The premium pay is provided only for those hours spent as a CTO training a probationary dispatcher while on-duty in the Dispatch Center. ARTICLE IX - UNIFORMS AND TOOL ALLOWANCES Section 1 - Uniforms. a. The City will provide uniforms, coveralls or shop coats on a weekly basis, or as otherwise furnished, for the following jobs and/or classifications and any positions necessary or required as determined by management. Animal Control Officer Assistant Storekeeper Auto Service Mechanic Building Service Person - Lead Building Service Person Cathodic Technician Cement Finisher - Lead Cement Finisher Chemist City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 30 of 76 Community Service Officer () Electrical Assistant Electrician Apprentice Electrician Lead Engineering Technician III - Refuse Equipment Operator Equipment Operator - Lead Facilities Carpenter Facilities Electrician Facilities Maintenance - Lead Facilities Mechanic Facilities Painter Field Serviceperson Gas System Shop/Field Repairer Gas System Technician I Gas System Technician II Golf Course Equipment Mechanic Golf Course Maintenance Person Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead Heavy Equipment Operator Industrial Waste Inspector Industrial Waste Investigator Instrumentation Electrician Laboratory Technician, Water Quality Control Line Person/Cable Splicer Line Person/Cable Splicer - Lead Mail Services Specialist Maintenance Mechanic/Maintenance Mechanic, Water Quality Control Mechanical Unit Repairer Meter Reader Meter Reader – Lead Mobile Service Technician Motor Equipment Mechanic - Lead Motor Equipment Mechanic Offset Equipment Operator - Lead Offset Equipment Operator Park Maintenance Assistant Parking Enforcement Officer Park Maintenance Person Park Crew - Lead Park Maintenance - Lead Park Ranger Parks & Open Space Assistant City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 31 of 76 Police Records Specialist Refuse Disposal Attendant Senior Chemist Senior Industrial Waste Inspector Senior Instrumentation Technician Senior Operator, Water Quality Control Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control Senior Park Ranger Sprinkler System Repairer Street Maintenance Assistant Storekeeper Storekeeper-Lead Street Sweeper Operator Traffic Control Maintainer - Lead Traffic Control Maintainer II Traffic Control Maintainer I Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer Tree Maintenance Assistant Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer Assistant Tree Trimmer-Line Clearer - Lead Tree Maintenance Person Truck Driver Utilities Compliance Technician Utility Field Service Representative Utility Installer/Repairer Utility Installer/Repairer Assistant Utility Installer/Repairer – Lead Utility Locator Water Meter Cross Connection Technician Water System Operator - Lead Water System Operator Water System Operator I Water System Operator II Water Quality Control Plant Operator b. Coveralls will be made available for occasional use as needed to protect clothing for the following classifications and any positions necessary or required as determined by management. Building Inspector Building Inspector Specialist Building Service Person - Lead Cable Splicer Assistant City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 32 of 76 Chief Electric Underground Inspector Electrical Assistant Electrician Facilities Mechanic/Painter Heavy Equipment Operator Lineperson/Cable Splicer Park Ranger Senior Park Ranger Utility Field Service Representative Sprinkler System Repairer Utility Installer Assistant Utility Installer/Repairer Utility Installer/Repairer - Lead c. Employees required to wear uniforms shall be provided suitable change rooms and lockers where presently provided. d. Employee clothing seriously damaged or destroyed in conjunction with an industrial injury will be reasonably replaced by the City. Any other claims alleging City liability may be filed with the City Attorney. e. Except in the Utilities Division, the City will make available, as an alternative to the shirts currently provided under Section 1(a), six (6) cotton polo shirts. Employees in the Utilities Division will be provided with six (6) long-sleeve shirts and two polo shirts. Employees will be responsible for laundering the shirts. Damaged or otherwise unwearable shirts will be returned to the employee’s supervisor and replaced by the City. f. Employees are responsible for laundering Park Ranger and Senior Park Ranger uniforms. g. The City will meet and confer with the Union regarding any mandated changes to uniforms. Section 2 - Tool Allowance. a. Mechanics in Equipment Maintenance, Park Maintenance Lead, Motorized Equipment Mechanic and Mobile Service Technician shall be paid a tool allowance of $610 annually. b. All tool allowances shall be paid bi-weekly. c. Parties will meet and confer to determine if additional classifications require tool allowance. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 33 of 76 Section 3 - Shoe Allowance. a. Safety Shoes. The City shall reimburse employees 75 % of the cost of job-related safety shoes upon verification of such purchase by the employee. b. Walking Shoes. The City will reimburse employees 75% of the cost of job-related walking shoes for any positions necessary or required as determined by management including Meter Reader and Meter Reader-Lead, in an amount not to exceed $300.00 per year. A walking shoe is a durable work shoe/boot (non steel-toed), is ankle supporting; oil, gas and slip resistant; waterproof or water resistant; lightweight and durable; and also provides hard surface cushioning. Section 4 - Certifications. The parties agree to retain the current list of required certifications below. Employees who are required to maintain commercial driver's licenses shall have costs for medical examinations paid by: a. Completing an examination through their PEMHCA provider. After benefits have been paid by the PEMHCA provider, upon presentation of proper documentation, the City will reimburse any remaining costs, or b. Completing an examination at the Workforce Medical clinic or other City designated clinic. Employees may use paid leave for attendance at scheduled medical examinations. Employees shall be permitted to use up to two hours of regular City-paid time for attendance at biannual medical examinations. The scheduling of such time shall be preauthorized by the employee’s supervisor. c. The City will pay special registration and/or certification fees which are required by Management. During the term of this agreement, the City and the Union may, by mutual agreement, review, add or delete classifications and/or required certifications listed below: Classification Requirement Buildg Inspection Specialist ICBO Certificate Cathodic Technician Corrosion Technician by the National Assoc. of Corrision Engineers Engineer Professional Professional Engineer Cert. (for step E) Equip Maint Serv Pers. Forklift Operator Cert. (OSHA-approved) Golf Course Maint Pers. Qualified Applicators' License Heavy Equipment Operator Crane Operation Certificate (Utilities and Electric) City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 34 of 76 Indust. Waste Inspector Backflow Prevention Device Tester Inspector Field Services, Utilities D1 (DOH) Hired before July 1, 2012 Installer/Repairer Series D1 (DOH) Maintenance Mechanic Crane Operator Certification (Water Quality) Mech. Unit Repairer Welding Certificate Motor Equip Mechanic and Lead EMS, ASE Public Safety Dispatcher POST Basic Dispatcher POST Fire Academy EMD Public Safety Dispatcher, Lead POST Basic Dispatcher POST Fire Academy POST Supervision EMD Senior Operator, WQC Grade III Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification Surveyor, PW Licensed Land Surveyor Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Certified Tree Worker and/or Qualified Line Clearance/Tree Trimmer Cert. (OSHA-approved) Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer-Lead Certified Arborist Utilities Install/Rep series Polyethylene Fusing Cert. Gas Operator Certification (DOT) Veterinarian Technician Animal Health Tech. Certification Water System Operator I Grade DI – Water Distribution Operator Water System Operator II Grade DII – Water Distribution Operator & City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 35 of 76 Grade TII – Water Treatment Operator Senior, Water System Operator Grade DIII – Water Distribution Operator & Grade TIII Water Treatment Operator WQC Plant Operator I Grade I Water Treatment Operator Certification. WQC Plant Operator II Grade II Water Treatment Operator Certification WQC Plant Operator Trainee Grade I Water Treatment Operator Certification Water Meter Cross- Connection Technician Backflow Prevention Tester Certification d. The City will pay for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) licensing fees for all employees required to maintain a Commercial Driver's License in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and applicable laws prescribed by the Department of Transportation. e. Pipeline Welding Assignment. The City provided a 4% premium in base compensation to Utility Installer-Repairer, Installer-Repairer Lead positions in 2006 that met DOT certification requirements and are were assigned these duties. Utility Installer-Repairer and Utility Installer-Repairer Lead positions that fail to maintain current certifications will not receive a 4%premium on their base pay. Positions assigned these duties and designated by Management to receive this premium will not exceed five (5) Utility Installer/Repairer and Installer/Repairer Lead. If the certification is required in the job description, certification must be maintained. In accordance with their job description Maintenance Mechanics that are assigned to Water Gas Wastewater must maintain all required certifications and shall receive 4% premium to their base pay for pipeline welding. f. Building Inspector. Upon successful completion of probationary requirements, the City will pay Building Inspectors a one (1) percent of base salary one-time payment for a certification above what is required. Employees may request one payment per year to a maximum of two payments in career. Payments will not exceed a maximum of one percent per year or two payments in a career. The Building Inspector Job Description specifies current requirements and the Union and City will agree on a list of appropriate certifications eligible for the premium. Premiums will not be paid if certification is not maintained. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 36 of 76 g. Water and Wastewater System Operator Certification. Employees classified in the following positions: Water Quality Control Plant Operators I and II, Senior Operator Water Quality Control, Water System Operators I and II, Senior Water Systems Operator, Inspector, Field Services assigned to Utilities and Installer Repairer Job Series may be eligible to receive a 1% base pay premium for certifications required by the Department of Health and/or the State Water Resources Control Board. Employees within these job classifications that have successfully completed probationary requirements may request an annual payment of one (1) percent for one (1) certification that is above those listed in their job description. An employee who qualifies for this payment shall be paid 1% of the employee’s annual base salary once per year. The employee shall be responsible for providing the City with written documentation that the employee has obtained and is maintaining the qualifying certification on an annual basis. Premiums will not be paid if certification is not maintained. Eligible employees should verify certification will qualify for the premium before attempting certification. The Union and the City will update the job descriptions to reflect newly required certifications with no further adjustments to base salary. Payments will not exceed a maximum of one percent per year, and will take effect in the pay period following the verification of certification. All costs for obtaining certifications above what the job description requires will be the responsibility of the employee and may be paid for by using the City’s tuition reimbursement program. h. In accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations any employee who operates a forklift must have Forklift Operator Certification. Training to be provided by the City. i. Crane Certification. A Heavy Equipment Operator, Line Person, Line Person Lead, or Maintenance Mechanic who possesses the legally required certification for operation of any crane will receive an increase of one percent (1%) of their base rate effective upon the ratification and adoption of this MOU by the City Council, or upon attainment of the certification, whichever is later. Heavy Equipment Operator (Electric) must possess a Crane certification regardless of hire date. Any employee hired on or after July 1, 2012 may be required to obtain and possess crane certification. For any other employee hired prior to July 1, 2012 crane certification shall be desirable (not required) except under the following circumstances: (a) there are insufficient employees in the classification (Heavy Equipment Operator [exclusive of Electric], Lineperson, Lineperson City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 37 of 76 Lead or Maintenance Mechanic) who possess the certification to perform the work; (b) The Manager has sought volunteers and no employee in the classification has volunteered to train for the certification; (c) all things being equal, the manager has selected the least senior employee in the classification who is judged by the City most likely to successfully complete the training and obtain crane certification. (d) The Manager will allow up to three attempts to pass the crane certification for any employee hired before July 1, 2012 who has been involuntarily assigned to acquire the crane certification. Related training and test costs shall be borne by the City. No employee hired before July 1, 2012 shall be disciplined or discharged for failure to acquire a Crane certification. Section 5 - Weather Protection. The City will provide rainy weather foot protection and one summer hat for the classification of Parking Enforcement Officer. ARTICLE X - HOLIDAYS Section 1 - Fixed Holidays. Except as otherwise provided, employees within the representation unit shall have the following fixed holidays with pay: January 1 Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King Day) Third Monday in February Last Monday in May July 4 First Monday in September Second Monday in October Veterans' Day, November 11 Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving December 25 Either December 24 or December 31 (see below) Employees shall be excused with pay for the full work shift on either December 24 or December 31, provided, however, that City facilities remain open with reduced staffing levels, that Management retains the right to determine work schedules, and that neither day be considered a holiday for purposes of premium pay. If employees are not excused pursuant to this provision, one shift of vacation credit will be added to their City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 38 of 76 vacation accrual. In the event that any of the aforementioned days, except for December 24 or December 31, falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be considered a holiday. In the event that any of the aforementioned days falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be considered a holiday. If December 24 and 31 falls on Sunday, then the preceding Friday will be designated for purposes of the holiday. Exceptions to this provision are listed in Appendix E. Section 2 - Pay for Fixed Holidays. a. All employees shall be paid a full day's pay at their regular straight time base hourly rate for all fixed holidays as defined herein. b. An employee must be in a pay status on the workday preceding the holiday to be eligible to be compensated for a holiday. This subsection does not apply to an employee who is on an unpaid medical leave of absence of less than five (5) days. Section 3 - Work on Fixed Holidays. Any employee required to work on a fixed holiday shall be paid time and one-half for such work in addition to his or her regular holiday pay. Work on a fixed holiday beyond the number of hours in a regular shift shall be compensated at double time and one-half. Employees who work a schedule where a regular day off falls on a holiday will accrue the holiday hours they would have normally worked on that day. Section 4 - Variations in Work Week. a. An employee whose work schedule requires that his or her regular days off be other than Saturday and/or Sunday shall have an additional day off scheduled by the department in the event a fixed holiday falls during his or her regularly scheduled day off. Every attempt will be made to schedule the day on a mutually agreeable basis. If the day cannot be so scheduled, the employee shall be paid for the day at the straight time base rate. b. Fixed holidays which fall during a vacation period or when an employee is absent because of illness shall not be charged against the employee's vacation or sick leave balance. Section 5 - Floating Days Off Employees hired on or before July 1, 2012 will be credited with 3 floating holidays to be scheduled for use by mutual agreement by employee and supervisor. In no event will FH be convertible to cash or other benefits in lieu of Floating Holidays. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 39 of 76 Effective at the close of business 6/30/13 one floating holiday will be eliminated. On July 1, 2013 and every July thereafter, employees will be credited with two (2) Floating Holidays to be scheduled in the same manner as noted above. Employees hired after 7/1/12 will not receive any floating holidays. Floating Holidays not used by the end of the fiscal year will be deemed forfeited. ARTICLE XI - VACATIONS Section 1 - Vacation Accruals. Each employee shall be entitled to an annual paid vacation, accrued as follows: a. First day of continuous service through the last day of the fourth (4th) year: 80 hours vacation per year. b. First day of the fifth year of continuous service through the last day of the ninth (9th) year: 120 hours vacation per year. c. First day of the tenth (10th) year of continuous service through the last day of the fourteenth (14th) year: 160 hours vacation per year. d. First day of the fifteenth (15th) year of continuous service through the last day of the nineteenth (19th) year: 180 hours vacation leave per year. e. Twenty (20) or more years: 200 hours vacation leave per year. Employees may accrue up to three times their annual vacation leave without loss of vacation days. In the event the City is unable to schedule vacation and, as a result thereof, the employee is subject to loss of accrued vacation, the City shall extend the vacation accrual limit up to one year, in which time the excess vacation must be scheduled and taken. As long as there is no interference with departmental operations, there shall be no unreasonable restriction of increments of use. Employees shall complete six (6) months' continuous service before using accrued vacation leave. Section 2 - Holiday Falling During Vacation. In the event a fixed holiday as defined in Article X falls within an employee's vacation period, which would have excused the employee from work (and for which no other compensation is made), an additional workday for such holiday shall be added to the vacation leave. Section 3 - Illness During Vacation. When an employee becomes ill while on vacation and such illness can be supported by a statement from an accredited physician or the employee is hospitalized for any period, the employee shall have the period of illness charged against sick leave and not against vacation leave. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 40 of 76 Section 4 - Accrued Vacation Pay for Deceased Employees. An employee who is eligible for vacation leave and who dies while in the municipal service shall have the amount of any accrued vacation paid to his/her estate within thirty days. This proration will be computed at his/her last basic rate of pay. Section 5 - Effect of Extended Military Leave. An employee who interrupts service because of extended military leave shall be compensated for accrued vacation at the time the leave becomes effective. Section 6 - Vacation at Termination. Employees leaving the municipal service with accrued vacation leave shall be paid the amounts of accrued vacation to the date of termination. Section 7 - Vacation Cash Out. Once each calendar year an employee may cash out eight or more hours of vacation accrual in excess of 80 hours, to a maximum of 120 hours, provided that the employee has taken 80 hours of vacation in the previous 12 months. a. To be eligible for cash out vacation, employees must pre-elect the number of vacation hours they will cash out during the following calendar year up to maximum of 120 hours, prior to the start of that calendar year. The election will apply only to vacation hours accrued in the next tax year and eligible for cash out. b. The election to cash out vacation hours in each designated year will be irrevocable. This means that employees who elect to cash out vacation hours must cash out the number of accrued hours pre-designated on the election form provided by the City. c. Employees who do not pre-designate or decline a cash out amount by the annual deadline established by the City will be deemed to have waived the right to cash out any leave in the following tax year and will not be eligible to cash out vacation hours in the next tax year. d. Employees who pre-designate cash out amounts may request a cash out at any time in the designated tax year by submitting a cash out form to Payroll. Payroll will complete the cash out upon request, provided the requested cash out amount has accrued and is consistent with the amount the employee pre- designated. If the full amount of hours designated for cash out is not available at the time of cash out request, the maximum available will be paid. e. For employees who have not requested payment of the elected cash out amount by November 1 of each year, Payroll will automatically cash out the pre- City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 41 of 76 designated amount in a paycheck issued on or after the payroll date including November 1. ARTICLE XII - LEAVE PROVISIONS Section 1 - Sick Leave. a. The City shall provide each employee with paid sick leave, earned on a daily basis and computed at the rate of 96 hours per year, with no limits on amounts that may be accumulated, except that for employees hired after July 1, 1983, sick leave accrual accumulation shall be limited to 1,000 hours and subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), shall not apply. Payment for accumulated sick leave at termination shall be made only in the following circumstances: 1) Eligible employees who leave the municipal service or who die while employed and who have fifteen or more years of continuous service shall receive compensation for unused sick leave hours in a sum equal to two and one-half percent of their unused sick leave hours multiplied by their years of continuous service and their base hourly rate of pay at termination. 2) Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the event of termination due to disability. b. Use of Sick Leave. Sick leave shall be allowed and used in cases of actual personal sickness or disability, medical or dental treatment, or as authorized for personal business. Up to nine days sick leave per year may be used for illness in the immediate family, including registered domestic partner. A new employee may, if necessary, use up to forty-eight (48) hours of sick leave at any time during the first six months of employment. Any negative balances generated by such utilization will be charged against future accrual or deducted from final paycheck in the event of termination. c. An employee who has been disabled for 60 consecutive days and who is otherwise eligible both for payment under the long-term disability group insurance coverage and accrued sick leave benefits may, at his/her option, choose either to receive the long term disability benefits or to utilize the remainder of his/her accrued sick leave prior to applying for long-term disability benefits. d. Sick leave will not be granted for illness occurring during any leave of absence unless the employee can demonstrate that it was necessary to come under the care of a doctor while on such other leave of absence. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 42 of 76 e. Return to Work With Limited Duty. Upon approval of department management and the City Risk Manager, an employee may return to work for doctor-approved limited duty. Approval for return to work shall be based upon department ability to provide work consistent with medical limitations, the location of the work assignment, and the length of time of the limitations. The City doctor may be consulted in determining work limitations. Section 2 - Bereavement Leave. Leave of absence with pay of three days shall be granted an employee by the head of his or her department in the event of death in the employee's immediate family, which is defined for the purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, step-son, son-in-law, daughter, step-daughter, daughter-in-law, mother, step-mother, mother-in-law, father, step-father, father-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, step-brother, sister, step-sister, sister in- law, grandmother, grandmother-in-law, grandfather, grandfather-in-law, grandchildren, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, registered domestic partner, or a close relative residing in the household of the employee. Such leave shall be at full pay and shall not be charged against the employee's accrued vacation or sick leave. Request for leave with pay in excess of three (3) days shall be subject to the written approval of the City Manager. Approval of additional leave will be based on the circumstances of each request with consideration given to the employee's need for additional time. Section 3 - Military Leave. The provisions of the Military and Veterans' Code of the State of California shall govern the granting of military leaves of absence and the rights of employees returning from such leaves. Consistent with the Military and Veterans Code, the City of Palo Alto shall pay employees in SEIU bargaining unit their regular salary, salary differential, and all available benefits for up to thirty days per calendar year. Section 4 - Leave Without Pay. a. Disability. Leaves of absence without pay may be granted in cases of disability not covered by sick leave. Pregnancy will be considered as any other disability. Leaves of absence for disability are subject to physicians' verification including diagnosis and medical work restriction. b. Family Leave. Family leave will be granted in accordance with applicable state and federal law. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 43 of 76 c. Other Leaves. Leaves of absence without pay may be granted in cases of personal emergency, Union business or when such absences would not be contrary to the best interest of the City. Non-disability prenatal leave is available under this provision, but such leave shall not begin more than six months prenatal nor extend more than six months postpartum. During unpaid leaves of absence for disability or other reasons, the employee may elect to use accrued vacation credits. Requests for leaves without pay shall not be unreasonably denied. In order to avoid misunderstandings, all leaves without pay must be in writing to be effective. Section 5 - Jury Duty and Subpoenas. Employees required to report for jury duty or to answer subpoenas as a witness in behalf of the State of California or any of its agencies shall be granted a leave of absence with pay from their assigned duties until released by the court, provided the employee remits to the City all fees received from such duties other than mileage or subsistence allowances within thirty (30) days from the termination of jury service. When an employee returns to complete a regular shift following time served on jury duty or as a witness, such time falling within the work shift shall be considered as time worked for purposes of shift completion and overtime computation. In determining whether or not an employee shall return to his or her regular shift following performance of the duties, reasonable consideration shall be given to such factors as travel time and a period of rest. When a combination of City work time and jury duty equals 14 or more hours in the 24-hour period immediately before the employee's shift starting time, the employee will be allowed a rest period of nine hours. Any portion of the rest period falling within the employee's work shift will be considered as hours worked and compensated at the straight time rate. This provision does not apply to conditions of bona fide emergency. Bona fide emergency conditions are conditions involving real or potential loss of service or property or personal danger. Section 6 - Time Off to Vote. Time off with pay to vote in any general or direct primary election shall be granted as provided in the State of California Elections Code, and notice that an employee desires such time off shall be given in accordance with the provisions of said Code. Section 7 - Disapproval of Leave of Absence. In case of disapproval of extension, revocation or cancellation of an existing leave of absence, notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employee stating the date of such action, the reason and a specific date to return to work, which is not less than five working days from date indicated on return receipt. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 44 of 76 Section 8 - Personal Business Leave Chargeable to Sick Leave. All employees shall be granted up to twenty (20) hours personal business leave per calendar year, chargeable to sick leave. The employee need not disclose the reason for the personal business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval of the appropriate level of Management, and such approval shall not unreasonably be denied. Section 9 - Return to Assignment. The department shall make every effort to ensure that employees resuming work following a leave pursuant to Sections 1- 8 shall be returned to the assignment, shift, and/or work location held immediately prior to the leave. If the employee cannot be so assigned, he or she shall, upon request, be granted a meeting with department management to discuss the reasons for the change. Upon request, the employee shall be afforded Union representation at such a meeting. ARTICLE XIII - WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Section 1 - Industrial Temporary Disability. a. While temporarily disabled, employees shall be entitled to use accrued sick leave for the first three (3) days following the date of injury and thereafter shall be paid full base salary for a period of not to exceed fifty-seven (57) calendar days, unless hospitalized, in which case employees shall be paid full base salary for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from date of injury. b. For any temporary disability continuing beyond the time limits set forth in (a) above, employees shall be paid two-thirds (66 2/3%) of their full base salary at the time of injury for the duration of such temporary disability in conformance with the State law. c. During the period of temporary disability, an employee's eligibility for health, dental, life, LTD, or other insured program will continue with City contributions at the same rate as for active employees. In case of Subsection (a) above, the employee will continue to accrue vacation and sick leave benefits. In the case of Subsection (b), sick leave and vacation benefits shall not be accrued. Section 2 - Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits for Permanently Disabled Employees. Vocational Rehabilitation will be made available to employees who have suffered permanent disability as a result of an injury or illness sustained in the course and scope of employment before 1/1/04. For injuries on or after 1/1/04 qualified employees are entitled to supplemental job displacement vouchers in accordance with the California Labor Code, Division 1, Department of Industrial Relations and Division 4, Workers’ Compensation and Insurance, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the City of Palo Alto's Workers’ Compensation Program. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 45 of 76 ARTICLE XIV - BENEFIT PROGRAMS Section 1 - Health Plan a. Active Employees During the term of this contract, the maximum City contribution towards medical premiums for eligible full time employees per employee category shall be up to a maximum of the following for any plan: Medical Premium Category PEMHCA contribution* Additional City Contribution 2014/2015 Up to a Total Maximum City Contribution Effective 1st PP following contract adoption Up to a Total Maximum City Contribution Effective January 1, 2015 Employee only $119.00 $569.00/$589.00 $688.00 $708.00 Employee plus one $119.00 $1256.00/$1296.00 $1375.00 $1415.00 Employee Family $119.00 $1669.00/$1721.00 $1788.00 $1840.00 Effective with the first pay period including January 1, 2015, the City’s total maximum contribution towards medical premiums for eligible part time employees shall be prorated based on the number of hours per week the part-time employee is assigned to work. *PEMHCA minimum changes per statutory determination. Any increases to the PEMHCA minimum during the term of this contract will result in a corresponding decrease to the amount of the additional City contribution, so that the total maximum City contribution never exceeds the amount listed in the “Total Maximum City Contribution” columns above. b. Health Plan Coverage for Future Retirees Hired Before January 1, 2005. Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health plan through the CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as provided under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act. Effective 1/1/07 the City’s monthly employer contribution for each retiree shall be the amount necessary to pay for the cost of his or her enrollment, in a health benefits plan up to the monthly premium for the 2nd most expensive plan offered to the SEIU employee (among the existing array of plans). However, the City contribution for an employee hired before January 1, 2005 who retires on or after April 1, 2011 shall be the same contribution amount it makes from time to time for active City employees. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 46 of 76 c. PERS – Health Benefit Vesting For Future Retirees Effective January 1, 2005. The CalPERS vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section 22893 will apply to all SEIU employees hired on or after January 1, 2005. Under this law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit, provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto. After ten years of service credit, each additional year of service credit will increase the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at 20 years’ service credit, the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer contribution. However, the maximum contribution for family members will be 90% of the specified employer contribution. The City of Palo Alto's health premium contribution will be the minimum contribution set by CalPERS under section 22893 based on a weighted average of available health plan premiums. Contingent on agreement with similarly affected bargaining units to eliminate the benefit provided by Government Code section 22893, SEIU agrees to eliminate this benefit and meet and confer over an alternative benefit for employees hired on or after January 1, 2005. d. Coverage for Domestic Partners. 1. Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of State. Employees may add their domestic partner as a dependent to their elected health plan coverage if the domestic partnership is registered with the Secretary of State. 2. Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of State. Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human Resources Department, will be eligible for a stipend of two hundred and eighty four dollars ($284.00) per month toward the cost of an individual health plan. Evidence of premium payment will be required with request for reimbursement. e. Alternative Medical Benefit Program. If a regular employee and/or the employee’s dependent(s) are eligible for and elect to receive medical insurance through any other non-City of Palo Alto employer-sponsored or association-sponsored group medical plan, the employee may choose to waive his/her right to the City of Palo Alto’s medical plan insurance and receive cash payments in the amount of two hundred eighty-four dollars ($284) for each month City coverage is waived. Examples of waivers eligible for this payment are: • Employee waives all applicable City medical coverage; or City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 47 of 76 • Employee is eligible to enroll his or her spouse or domestic partner and waives medical coverage for the spouse or domestic partner; or • Employee has additional eligible dependents and waives family-level medical coverage. Participation must result in a health insurance cost savings to the City and payments per employee shall not exceed a total of two hundred eighty four dollars ($284.00) per month. To participate in the program the employee and dependents must be eligible for coverage under PEMHCA medical plans, complete a waiver of medical coverage form, and provide proof of eligible alternative medical coverage. Payments will be made in the employee’s paycheck beginning the first month following the employee’s completion of the waiver form. Payments are subject to state and federal taxes and are not considered earnings under PERS law. Employees are responsible for notifying the City of any change in status affecting eligibility for this program (for example, life changes affecting dependent’s eligibility for medical coverage through the employee) and will be responsible for repayment of amounts paid by the City contrary to the terms of this program due to the employee’s failure to notify the City of a change in status. f. If the State of California or federal government requires the City to participate and contribute toward coverage under any medical plan outside of PEMHCA including but not limited to the Affordable Care Act, the City’s total liability for enrolled employees and retirees and their eligible family members shall not exceed what the City would have paid toward PEMHCA coverage in the absence of such state or federal plan. The parties will meet and confer over the impact of such change on matters within the scope of representation before implementing any change. Section 2-Dental Plan. a. The City shall continue to provide a self-funded dental program for the benefit of City employees and their eligible dependents. The City shall pay 100% of the required premiums for the program, except that benefits for regular part-time employees will be prorated as follows: Employees hired after January 1, 2005, who will work less than full time, will receive prorated premium costs for dental benefits in accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule. Part-time employees currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted. b. The City’s Dental Plan provides the following: Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year $2,000 per person. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 48 of 76 c. Effective July 1, 2001, dental implants in conjunction with one or more missing natural teeth, and removal of implants will be covered as a Major Dental Service at 50% usual, customary and reasonable (UCR). d. Effective 1/1/07 the City will add composite (tooth colored) fillings in dental plan posterior teeth. e. Effective 1/1/07 the City will pay up to $2000.00 for Orthodontia coverage. Section 3 - Vision Care. The City shall continue to provide a self-funded vision care program for the benefit of City employees and their dependents. The City shall pay 100% of the required premiums for the program. The benefits of the vision care program shall continue to be equivalent to $20 Deductible Plan A under the Vision Service Plan. Section 4 - Life Insurance. The City agrees to continue the Basic and Supplemental life insurance plan as currently in effect for the term of this Memorandum of Agreement. Section 5- Long Term Disability Insurance. The City shall continue the long term disability insurance plan currently in effect for the term of this Memorandum of Agreement. For Plan A, the benefit is 66 and 2/3% of pre-disability earnings to the maximum benefit level of $4000.00 per month. Employee coverage is subject to a voluntary payroll deduction of the insurance premium applicable to the first $6,000 of monthly salary, less a credit of $11.17 per month to be paid by the City. For Plan B, the benefit is 60% of pre-disability earnings up to the maximum benefit level of $1800 per month. Employee coverage is subject to a voluntary payroll deduction of the insurance premium applicable to the first $2000 of monthly salary for Plan B. The City will pay premiums in excess thereof. The City will pay up to $17.50 per month toward long term disability insurance premiums for those employees without eligible dependents covered under the health insurance provisions. Section 6 - Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees. For newly-hired regular employees, elected coverage will begin on the first day of the month following date of hire. Section 7 - Dual Coverage. When a City employee is married to another City employee each shall be covered only once (as an individual or as a spouse of the other City employee, but not both) and dependent children, if any, shall be covered by only one spouse. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 49 of 76 Section 8 - Deferred Compensation. The City shall continue to make available a Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to SEIU employees and will insure reasonable access to Deferred Compensation representatives for all interested employees. Section 9 - Dependent Care Assistance Program. The City shall continue to provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) for employees that complies with Section 125 and 129 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 10 - Training Programs. a. Employees assigned by the City to attend meetings, workshops, or conventions of their professional or technical associations shall have their dues and reasonable expenses paid by departmental funds and shall be allowed to attend such workshops, meetings, and conventions on paid City time. b. City will reimburse for travel, meals and lodging while away from home attending an educational conference that the supervisor authorizes as being job related or which will improve an employee’s skills. Per City Policy and Procedure 1-02, the Pre-Travel Authorization Form should indicate expenses that will be paid. ARTICLE XV - RETIREMENT Section 1 - PERS Continuation. a. Pension Group A: 2.7% @ 55. The City will continue the present benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement System 2.7% at 55 for employees hired before July 17, 2010. The Parties acknowledge that employees under this formula hired before July 17, 2010 are subject to a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on their single highest year of compensation earnable as provided by Government Code Section 20042. b. Pension Group B: 2.0% @ 60 – (Single Highest Year). For employees hired on or after July 17, 2010 and before January 1, 2013, and employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 who are not “new members” of CalPERS as defined in the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (often referred to as “Classic” CalPERS members), but before the adoption of the modified 2% at 60 formula described below, whichever is later, the City will continue to provide the 2% at 60 retirement formula (“2% at 60”). The Parties acknowledge that employees under the existing 2% at 60 pension formula are subject to a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on their single highest year of compensation earnable as provided by Government Code section 20042. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 50 of 76 c. Pension Group C: 2.0% @ 60 – (3 Highest Years). The City shall further amend its contract with CalPERS to provide miscellaneous “Classic” CalPERS members hired on or after August 1, 2013 with the CalPERS retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final compensation at age sixty (60) with a final compensation calculation, for pension determination purposes, based on the employee’s three consecutive highest years of compensation earnable, as provided by Government Code section 20037. The City may delay the adoption or implementation of the foregoing amendment to the extent it deems such delay necessary to accommodate legal and administrative requirements. In such event, employees hired between and including August 1, 2013 and the day before the amendment’s implementation date will be placed in the 2% of final compensation at age 60 formula with single highest year earnable compensation as described above. d. Pension Group D: 2%@62. Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 meeting the definition of “new member” under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (Gov’t. Code s. 7522 et seq.) shall be subject to all of the provisions of that law, including but not limited to the two percent at age 62 (2%@62) retirement formula with a three year final compensation period. Section 2 - Employee Share. Effective with the first pay period including July 1, 2012 employees in Pension Groups A, B and C described in Section 1 above shall pay 8% if enrolled in the 2.7%@55 benefit or 7% if enrolled in the 2%@60 benefit. Employees in Pension Group D shall pay the employee contribution required by the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, calculated at fifty percent (50%) of the normal cost. Section 4 - Utility Rates Discount. Employees who retire and were employed by the City on or before April 1, 1977, and spouses of deceased employees who were employed by the City on or before April 1, 1977, shall continue reductions in utility rates. All retired employees and spouses of deceased employees shall also have residential privileges at City libraries, refuse disposal area, golf course and swimming pools. ARTICLE XVI - COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PARKING Section 1 - Commute Incentive. Eligible employees may voluntarily elect one of the following commute incentives: City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 51 of 76 a. Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent work locations. The City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit. New employees hired after April 30, 1994 may initially receive a parking permit for another downtown lot, subject to the availability of space at the Civic Center Garage. b. Carpool. The City will provide $30 per month (taxable income) to each eligible employee in a carpool for 60% or more of their scheduled work days per month with two or more people. c. Bicycle. The City will provide $20 per month to eligible employees who ride a bicycle to work. This payment is available through the CCD web site in the form of a special Commuter Check (tax free) for bike equipment, gear or repairs. This benefit cannot be combined with other commute benefits. d. Walk. The City will provide $20 per month (taxable income) to eligible employees who walk to work 60% or more of their scheduled work days. e. Transit or vanpool users: Tax-free incentives up to the IRS limit (currently $125/month) are available through the Commuter Check Direct (CCD) web site for employees using Bay Area public transportation or riding in a registered vanpool at least 60% of their scheduled work days. The deadline for registering with CCD and placing an online order is 8:59 p.m. on the 7th of each month, for the next month’s benefit. For example, employees wishing to order a transit pass by June must place their online orders with CCD by May 7th. Section 2 – Parking Lot Security – Municipal Service Center. The City will provide fenced and locked parking facilities for Municipal Service Center employees. Procedures will be established for entering and leaving the parking facilities. Section 3 – Bicycle Lockers and Motorcycle Parking. The City will provide bicycle lockers and motorcycle parking areas for City employees at mutually agreeable work locations. ARTICLE XVII - PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS If any non-probationary employee who is required to have a City-provided physical examination not related to workers' compensation programs disagrees with the findings of the City-sponsored physician, he/she may consult with his/her own physician and, if his/her private physician's report conflicts with that of the City physician in terms of ability to work at his/her regular job, then he/she may request an evaluation of his/her problem through a third physician mutually agreed upon by the employee and the City. Cost for such examination will be equally shared and the decision of this physician concerning the continuing ability of the employee to perform his/her work in his/her City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 52 of 76 regular job without exposing himself/herself to further injury as a result of his/her condition shall be the basis for returning the employee to his/her regular work. ARTICLE XVIII – SAFETY Section 1 - Health and Safety Provisions. The City shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt use practices, means, methods, operations and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe, in conformance with applicable safety regulations under the State Labor and Administrative Code sections. The City shall not require or permit any employee to go to or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe. Section 2 - Union Cooperation. Union will cooperate with the City by encouraging all employees to perform their work in a safe manner. Section 3 - Safety Committees and Disputes. Safety committees composed of Management and Union stewards in the below listed organizations will meet no less than six (6) times annually to discuss safety practices, methods of reducing hazards, and to conduct safety training. This shall in no way remove the basic responsibility of safety from Management nor shall it in any way alter the responsibility of the employee to report unsafe conditions directly and immediately to his or her supervisor. Community Services Public Works Water-Gas-Wastewater Field Operations Electric Field Operations Water Quality Control a. A committee composed of one facilities Management representative, one building inspection representative, two Union representatives, and the City Risk Manager will meet as needed concerning safety matters of the Civic Center. b. A ten-member Citywide Union/Management safety committee with equal Union and Management membership will meet upon call to review safety and occupational health standards and practices, discuss overall City safety and health problems, and to act as an advisory group to the departmental safety committees. The committee shall review all departmental safety programs and recommend change where necessary. c. In cases of dispute over safe working conditions the employee will first report such unsafe conditions to his or her supervisor and every attempt will be made to rectify the problem at this level. The employee may contact his or her City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 53 of 76 steward to assist in the resolution of the dispute. If the problem cannot be resolved the Risk Manager will be contacted and the problem will be addressed through the interpretation of the basic safety rules and regulations. Should the problem not be resolved at this step, the grievance procedure will be utilized. Safety grievances shall be submitted at Step III. d. In response to recommendations from the Ergonomics Safety Committee, management will develop training workshops which include information on safe ergonomic work practices. Such workshops will be given at least two times per year. Upon release of Cal/OSHA regulations covering safe workplace ergonomic standards, management will immediately adopt such standards as party of its Injury Prevention Program. ARTICLE XIX - GRIEVANCE and APPEAL PROCEDURE Section 1 - General Provisions. The City and the Union recognize that early settlement of grievance or appeal of disciplinary actions is essential to sound employee-employer relations. The parties seek to establish a mutually satisfactory method for the settlement of employee grievances, or appeal of disciplinary action, or Union grievances as provided for below. In presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action, the aggrieved and/or his or her representative is assured freedom from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal. Release time for investigation and processing a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is designated in Article IV of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Section 2 – Definitions. a. Grievance means an unresolved complaint or dispute regarding the application or interpretation of rules, regulations, policies, procedures, Memorandum of Agreement or City ordinances of resolution, relating to terms or conditions of employment, wages or fringe benefits, excluding however those provisions of this MOA which specifically provide that the decision of any City official shall be final, the interpretation or application of those provisions not being subject to the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. b. Appeal of a disciplinary action means an appeal of any kind of disciplinary action against an employee covered by this Memorandum of Agreement. Discipline is defined as suspensions without pay, reductions in pay, demotion or discharge. Reprimands, transfers, reassignments, layoffs, and negative comments in performance evaluations are not considered discipline. Section 3 - Conduct of Grievance Procedure or Appeal of Disciplinary Action Procedure. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 54 of 76 a. An aggrieved employee may be represented by the Union or may represent himself/herself in preparing and presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action at any level of review. Grievances or appeal of disciplinary action may also be presented by a group of employees. No grievance or appeal of disciplinary action settlement may be made in violation of an existing merit rule or memorandum of agreement. The Union will be notified prior to the implementation of any settlement made which affects the rights or conditions of other employees represented by the Union. The Union and the Steward will be copied on all written representation unit grievance or appeal of disciplinary action decisions. b. An employee and the representative steward, if any, may use a reasonable amount of work time so long as there is no disruption of work, in conferring about and presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. Requests for release time to prepare grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article IV, Section 3. c. Beginning with the third step of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure, the Chief Steward or Alternate Chief Steward may assist in presenting a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action and may be present at all Step III, and IV grievance or appeal of disciplinary action hearings. d. The time limits specified in this Article may be extended by mutual agreement in writing of the aggrieved employee or the Union and the reviewer concerned. e. Should a decision not be rendered within a stipulated time limit, the grievant may immediately appeal to the next step. f. The grievance or appeal of disciplinary action may be considered settled if the decision of any step is not appealed within the specified time limit. g. If appropriate, the aggrieved employee(s) or the Union and the department head may mutually agree, in writing, to waive Step I and/or Step II of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. h. Grievances or appeal of disciplinary action shall be made in writing and submitted on forms provided by the City or on forms which are mutually agreeable to the City and the Union. The written grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall contain clear, factual and concise language, including: (1) the name of the grievant; (2) a statement of the facts upon which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is based, including relevant dates, times and places; (3) specific provisions of this Agreement or specific City rules, policies, or procedures which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action alleges has been City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 55 of 76 violated; (4) a summary of any steps taken toward resolution; and (5) the action the grievant believes will resolve the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. i. Any retroactivity on monetary grievances or appeal of disciplinary action shall be limited to the date of occurrence, except in no case will retroactivity be granted prior to three months before the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action was filed in writing. j. If the grievance is filed by more than one employee in the bargaining unit, the Union may, at its option, convert it to a Union grievance after Step II of the grievance procedure. The Union may also file a grievance in those instances when, under this Memorandum of Agreement, a Union right not directly related to an individual employee becomes the subject of dispute. Union grievances shall comply with all of the foregoing provisions and procedures. k. For purposes of time limits, “working days” are considered to be Monday through Friday, exclusive of City holidays. l. If a mutually agreed solution is reached during any step of this grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure, the agreement shall be placed in writing and signed by the City and the grievant or union. m. Upon request of either party, meetings to discuss the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action shall be held at any step in the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action procedure. n. The Parties may mutually agree in writing to an alternate method(s) of delivery for any communication for any notices required pursuant to Article XIX, Grievance Procedure, of a grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. Such agreement shall list the designated representative(s) for each party and the appropriate contact information for each Party, and describe the agreed-upon method(s) of communication. All designated representatives shall be copied on any communications. On all transmissions that are intended to conform to a time limit, the sender shall retain proof that the transmission was sent within that limit (for example, confirmation of electronic mail transmission or record of successful fax transmission) in the sender’s file for production if a dispute arises over existence or timing of the transmission. Either Party may designate new representatives or terminate an alternate delivery agreement under this section by providing written notice, which shall be effective immediately, to the other. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 56 of 76 Section 4 - Grievance and Appeal Procedure. Step I. Informal Discussion. Within fifteen (15) working days after the incident or discovery of the incident on which the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is based the aggrieved employee shall present the grievance action to his or her immediate supervisor and attempt to resolve the grievance through informal discussions. Every attempt will be made to settle the issue at this level. Step II. If the grievance is not resolved through the informal discussion in Step 1 or the employee wishes to appeal disciplinary action taken against him/her in the case of a grievance, the employee will reduce the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action to writing and submit copies to the Department head or his or her designee within fifteen (15) working days of the discussion with the immediate supervisor or within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of a final disciplinary action. The Department Head or designee shall have fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of a written grievance or appeal of disciplinary action to review the matter and prepare a written statement. Step III. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved and/or the aggrieved employee is not satisfied with the Step II decision, the grievant or disciplined employee may appeal to the Human Resource Director or his or her designee in writing within fifteen (15) working days of the receipt of the Department Head's response. The written appeal to the Human Resources level shall include a copy of the original grievance or appeal of disciplinary action, the Department Head’s decision at Step II, and a clear statement of the reasons for appeal. Within fifteen (15) working days, after receiving the written appeal, the Human Resource Director shall review the matter and prepare a written statement. If a mutually agreed solution is reached during this process the agreement shall be placed in writing and signed. // // // City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 57 of 76 Step IV. If the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action is not resolved at Step III, the aggrieved employee may choose between final and binding resolution of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action through appeal to the City Manager or through appeal to final and binding arbitration. For the term of this Memorandum of Agreement, appeals to final and binding arbitration may be processed only with Union approval. All Step IV appeals must be filed in writing at the Human Resources Department Office within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the Human Resource Director’s decision at Step 3. If the grievant or appellant elects final and binding resolution by the City Manager, the City Manager will choose the methods he or she considers appropriate to review and settle the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. The City Manager shall render a written decision to all parties directly involved within fifteen (15) working days after receiving the grievant/appellant’s appeal. If the grievant/appellant elects final and binding arbitration in accordance with this provision, the parties shall mutually select an arbitrator within 90 days from the date of receipt of the written request for appeal. In the event the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, they shall mutually request a panel of five arbitrators from the California State Conciliation Service or from the American Arbitration Association if either party objects to the State Conciliation Service, and select an arbitrator by the alternate strike method. The arbitrator shall have jurisdiction and authority only to interpret, apply, or determine compliance with the provisions of this Memorandum of Agreement and such Merit System Rules, regulations, policies, procedures, City ordinances, resolutions relating to terms or conditions of employment, wages or fringe benefits, as may hereafter be in effect in the City insofar as may be necessary to the determination of grievances or appeal of disciplinary action appealed to the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be without power to make any decision contrary to, or inconsistent with or modifying in any way, the terms of this Memorandum Of Agreement. The arbitrator shall be without authority to require the City to delegate or relinquish any powers which by State law or City Charter the City cannot delegate or relinquish. Where either party seeks arbitration and the other party claims the matter is not subject to the arbitration provisions of this Memorandum of Agreement, the issue of arbitrability shall first be decided by the arbitrator using the standards and criteria set forth in Article XX and without regard to the merits of the grievance or appeal of disciplinary action. If the issue is held to be arbitrable, the arbitration proceedings will be recessed for up to five working days during which the parties shall attempt to resolve the grievance. If no resolution is reached, the arbitrator will resume the hearing and hear and resolve the issue on the merits. Copies of the arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City, the aggrieved employee and the Union. All direct costs emanating from the arbitration procedure shall be shared equally by the City and the aggrieved employee or the Union. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 58 of 76 ARTICLE XX - UNSATISFACTORY WORK OR CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION The City has the right to discipline, demote, or discharge employees for cause. Non- probationary employees whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory but not sufficiently deficient to warrant discipline, demotion, or discharge will be given a written notification of unsatisfactory work or conduct and an opportunity to improve. Failure to correct deficiencies and improve to meet standards may result in discipline, demotion, or discharge. Discipline is defined as suspensions without pay, reduction in pay, demotion, or discharge. Reprimands, transfers, reassignments, layoffs, and negative comments in performance evaluations are not discipline and shall not be subject to the requirements of this Article. Section 1 - Preliminary Notice of Discipline. Prior to imposing disciplinary action, a supervisor shall provide an employee with preliminary written notice of the proposed disciplinary action. The notice of proposed disciplinary action must be in writing and served on the employee in person or by registered mail or Fed-Ex . The notice of disciplinary action shall include: a. Statement of the violations upon which the disciplinary action is based; b. Intended effective date of the action; c. Statement of the cause thereof; d. Statement in ordinary and concise language of the act or the omissions upon which the causes are based; e. Copies of any documents or other written materials upon which the disciplinary action was fully or in part based. f. Statement advising the employee of his/her right to appeal from such action, and the right to union representation. g. The date and location of the Skelly meeting and the name of the Skelly Officer Section 2 - Skelly Meeting. The employee shall have the right to respond informally to the charges either verbally or in writing before the discipline is imposed. The employee shall have fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the notice to request this pre- disciplinary administrative review. The employee may request a reasonable extension of the time to respond for justifiable reasons. The Skelly meeting to listen to the verbal City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 59 of 76 responses shall be scheduled with a City representative who is not the manager recommending the discipline (the “Skelly Officer”). The Skelly Officer shall render a final written decision (the “post-Skelly decision”) within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the employee’s response, if any, and shall deliver the post-Skelly decision to the employee by personal delivery or registered mail. The Skelly Officer may sustain, modify, or overturn the recommended disciplinary action. If the Skelly Officer sustains or modifies the disciplinary action, the action may be imposed after the post-Skelly decision is delivered to the employee. Section 3 – Appeals. Appeals of disciplinary action should be processed through the procedures outlined in Steps 2-4 of the grievance appeal of disciplinary action procedure (Article XIX, Section 4.) ARTICLE XXI - NO ABROGATION OF RIGHTS The parties acknowledge that Management rights as indicated in Section 1207D of the Merit System Rules and Regulations and all applicable State laws are neither abrogated nor made subject to negotiation by adoption of this MOA. ARTICLE XXII - OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT The provisions of Article 4.7 of the Government Code of the State of California will govern the determination of incompatible outside employment. ARTICLE XXIII – WORK STOPPAGE AND LOCKOUTS The City agrees that it will not lock out employees, and the Union agrees that it will not engage in any concerted work stoppage or slowdown during the term of this MOA. An employee shall not have the right to recognize the picket line of a labor organization when performing duties of an emergency nature. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 60 of 76 ARTICLE XXIV PROVISIONS OF THE LAW Section 1. Conformity and Separability of Provisions. This Memorandum of Agreement is subject to all current and future applicable Federal and State laws and Federal and State regulations and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. Should any of the provisions herein contained be rendered or declared invalid by reason of any existing State or Federal legislation, such invalidation of such part or portion of this Memorandum of Agreement shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and they shall remain in full force and effect, insofar as such remaining portions are severable. Section 2. Merit Rules and Regulations. This Memorandum of Agreement shall become a part of the City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and Regulations applying to employees assigned to classifications in the SEIU unit. As applied to employees assigned to the SEIU unit, this Memorandum of Agreement shall prevail over any conflicting Merit Rules and Regulations. Section 3 - Resolution. The City and the Union agree by signing this Memorandum of Agreement that the wages, hours, rights and working conditions contained herein shall be continued in full force during the term of this Memorandum of Agreement except as otherwise provided for in the Memorandum of Agreement and shall be binding on both the City and the Union upon ratification by the Council of the City of Palo Alto and upon ratification by Union membership. ARTICLE XXV - COST REDUCTION PROGRAMS During the term of this agreement, the Union will aggressively assist Management in developing cost reduction programs. Such programs may include voluntary reduced hours/pay after this concept is studied by Management, and with such application as may be approved by Management. ARTICLE XXVI – TERM The Term of this Memorandum of Agreement shall commence on December 1, 2013 and shall expire on December 1, 2015. The Parties agree that they will commence negotiations over a successor to this Memorandum of Agreement no later than one hundred eighty (180) days before its expiration. If, at the time this Memorandum of Agreement would otherwise expire, the parties are continuing to negotiate a successor Memorandum of Agreement, upon mutual agreement the terms and conditions of this Memorandum will continue in effect. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 61 of 76 EXECUTED: FOR LOCAL 521, SEIU, CTW: FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO: _______________________________ _______________________________ Nick Raisch, SEIU James Keene, City Manager Margaret Adkins, Chapter Chair Kathryn Shen, Chief People Officer Oscar Goodinez Dania Torres-Wong, Chief Negotiator _____ _ Erwin Gonsolez Melissa Tronquet, Employee Relations Mgr Anthony Mouton Joe Saccio, Deputy Director, Administrative Services Peggy Quillman Nancy Nagel, Sr. Financial Analyst ___________ Peter Quiroz Dean Batchelor ______ Ratu Serumalani Debra Burger _______________________________ __________________________________ Luis Uribe Brad Eggleston _______________________________ ___________________________________ Joshua Wallace Angelica Jimenez ________________________________ Brenna Rowe ________________________________ Robert de Geus City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 62 of 76 Appendix “A” Salary Increases and Salary Schedule This Appendix will be amended to reflect salary increases and market adjustments with the effective dates shown in Appendix A-1, with the final salary schedule as shown in Appendix A-2. For the duration of this agreement, the City shall maintain service retention steps of 2.5% of base for Dispatcher I, II and Lead at the beginning of 7th year and beginning of 10th year. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 63 of 76 APPENDIX B. APPRENTICESHIPS ELECTRICIAN/LINEPERSON - LINEPERSON/CABLE SPLICER APPRENTICE: May lead to Electrician or Lineperson/Cable Splicer positions. The Utilities Department is proposing to formalize the Apprenticeship programs in the Electric Section to develop journey level electricians and lineperson/cable splicers. The following are basic concepts/principles to be incorporated: 1. The administration and operation of the Apprentice Lineperson/Cable Splicer program will be managed by the Apprenticeship Committee which will be selected by the Manager of Electric Operations and comprised of two (2) bargaining unit members designated by Local 521 and two (2) Managers and the Manager of Electric Operations. The Manager of Electric Operations will maintain oversight of the program. The Apprenticeship Program will be subject to review and approval by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards. 2. The journey level position will not be a promotional opportunity for anyone other than the apprentice underfilling the position, as long as that apprentice is successfully progressing through the program. 3. Employees in Electric Operations who qualify will be given first consideration for the apprentice position prior to other City classifications or recruiting from outside the City. 4. A letter of agreement will be entered into by the apprentice and the City identifying the terms and conditions of the program. 5. The program will normally require forty-eight (48) months to complete. 6. Normal progress through the program will be in periodic increments with formal evaluations. 7. Salary steps have been established to bridge the Electrical Assistant classification into the journey level classification. Employees hired into an Apprenticeship position on or before July 1, 2012 will continue to progress through the Apprenticeship steps and into the Lineperson journey rate at the same intervals as existed before July 1, 2012 for other employees in the Apprenticeship Program. This will result in the employee achieving the top step (step 5) of the Lineperson rate after completion of 36 months of the Apprenticeship Program. However, such employees will continue in the Apprenticeship program through the successful completion of the fourth year of the program. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 64 of 76 Employees hired into an Apprenticeship position after July 1, 2012 will be paid at step 1 of the Apprenticeship range through the first year of the Apprenticeship. At the end of the first year, the employee will progress to step 2. The next step will occur at 18 months after the commencement of the Apprenticeship; the next at 24 months; the next at 30 months; and the next at 36 months. Upon completion of the fourth year following commencement of the Apprenticeship, the employee will be paid at the top step (step 5) of the journey Lineperson wage. Successful completion of the program and movement into the Lineperson classification will not transpire until the employee has fulfilled all of the requirements outlined in the program content description and received the recommendation of the Apprenticeship Committee. 8. A process for initial selection and placement in the program will be established. The City and the Union agree to review or develop job descriptions to better reflect the qualification necessary to attract and retain successful candidates for this program. It is further agreed that the job descriptions will not warrant additional compensation. 9. A procedure for removing an unsuccessful apprentice from the program will be developed. 10. A task force including journey level persons will be assigned to determine the content and approach to specific elements of training. 11. Training will consist of on-the-job (OJT) and after hours elements (study and formal classes). Off-the-job training costs will be funded by tuition reimbursement and departmental funds. Personal time spent in off-the-job training will not be compensated. 12. The apprentice will be under the continuing guidance of an appropriately qualified journey level person during OJT. Such journey level persons will be assigned by Management from among volunteers and will receive no additional compensation. 13. Qualifications/progress will be verified by appropriately kept records. 14. Unless specifically stated otherwise, regular City personnel policies and MOA provisions will apply to the apprenticeship program. 15. This program may become a conceptual model for apprenticeships in other divisions or departments. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 65 of 76 APPENDIX C. ALTERNATIVE 4/11 WORK SCHEDULE The City and Union have agreed to the following alternative work schedule for Public Safety Dispatchers: 1. The City agrees to maintain a minimum of 18 permanent dispatchers on paid status for this alternative 4/11 work schedule. If the Communications Unit falls below the minimum staffing levels for Communications for more than 120-days (4 months), the City and the Union will meet and confer over whether to continue the 4/11 schedule or revert to another schedule (such as 4/10) until such time as there are 18 permanent dispatchers on paid status. 2. The City agrees that in accordance with FLSA requirements the dispatchers will receive overtime for all hours worked outside of the regularly scheduled work hours of the 4/11 schedule. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 66 of 76 APPENDIX D - DEPT/DIVISION CLASSIFICATION WORKDAY OR WORK WEEK VARIATION Section 1. Exceptions to Standard Workday or Work Week for SEIU Representation Unit: Community Services Arts & Culture Division Volunteer - Coordinator Each week (30 hours): 15 hours of unscheduled time; 15 hours of scheduled time Library Department Coordinator, Library Programs Librarian Senior Librarian Library Specialist Library Assistant Library Associate In a given workweek, staff may work three eight-hour days, one seven-hour day, and one nine-hour day. On a voluntary basis, staff may work five non-consecutive days within seven. Section 2. Rules Governing Flexible Work Hours. These rules and procedures are established pursuant to Article VI, Section 8, and are an application of Article VIII, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Memorandum of Agreement to the classifications of Coordinator, Recreation Programs; Producer, Arts & Sciences Programs; Program Assistant; Theater Specialist, in the Recreation and Arts & Culture Divisions of the Community Services Department, and the classifications of Associate Planner, Building Planning Technician, CDBG Coordinator, Engineer, Executive Secretary, Office Specialist, Planner, Senior Planner and Staff Secretary in the Planning and Community Environment Department. a) Flexible Work Schedule 1. Employees in the covered classification shall be permitted to arrange flexible work schedules with division approval, providing that such schedules shall include forty (40) hours per week. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 67 of 76 2. Standard daily office hours shall be Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Flexible hours may occur for supervision of, and/or attendance at, evening programs, meetings, weekend events, or other programs. 1. Overtime 1. Emergency call-out work shall be defined as overtime work and compensated per standard City practices. 2. If the need arises for overtime work due to an unusual circumstance calling for extra hours or due to a special event, compensation shall be allowed with prior approval of the Director of Recreation, Director of Arts and Culture, or the Director of Planning and Community Environment, and shall be compensated for, as spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement. Section 3. 2080 Plan a) Either the Union or the City may withdraw from the Plan by giving the other party 30 calendar days written notice. In the event of termination of the plan, the covered classifications will return to an 8-hour or other authorized workday as provided under Article VIII, Section 1, of this Memorandum of Agreement. b) Provisions of the 2080 Plan are as follows. To the extent that these provisions are in conflict with other provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement, these provisions will prevail. c) The 2080 Plan or “12 hours per Shift Schedule” is an authorized work schedule for the Electric System Operators and Water Quality Control Plant Operators. 2080 Plan Under this 2080 Plan, each employee's hours of work per year may not exceed 2,240. For scheduling purposes, and subject to the Merit System Rules and Regulations, the employee will be guaranteed not less than 2080 hours per year, or no less than 52 weeks at the normal number of hours worked per week. Any employee covered by the Plan who works up to 2,080 hours per year is compensated for all hours worked at the agreed upon rate. The City must pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 12 in any workday, 56 hours in any work week, or 2080 hours in 52 weeks as the case may be. The rate of overtime will be at time and one-half the employee's regular rate of pay (or current contract overtime rate, if different). Shift Schedule The shift schedules combined must provide full 24-hour, seven (7) days per week coverage for the Utility Control Center and Water Quality Control Plan. The shift City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 68 of 76 schedule shall be a rotating schedule. The Electric System Operators’ shift schedule will reach the equivalent of 40 hours per week in five weeks. The 12-hour shifts begin at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The Relief shift shall begin at 7:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. with lunch taken while working. The shift schedule shall be rotating schedule. The Water Quality Control Plant Operators’ shift schedule will reach the equivalent of 40 hours per week in two weeks. There will be four 12-hour shifts that begin at 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The fifth shift will be a 4/10 shift that begins at 6 a.m. on three days, and at noon on the fourth day. Pay Period Pay periods and workweek for the System Operations will begin Sunday at 7:01 a.m. Pay periods and workweek for the Water Quality Control Plan Operators will begin Saturday at 6:01 a.m. Wages Wages will be based on the City of Palo Alto Compensation Plan, which may vary from time to time as mutually agreed upon. Overtime Under the 2080 Plan, the City will pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 12 in any workday, 56 in any work week, or 2080 in 52 weeks, as the case may be. Overtime will also be paid for hours worked when an employee is called in to work other than their regularly-scheduled shift. The overtime rate of pay will be one and one-half times (or current contract overtime rate, if different) of the employee's regular rate of pay. All overtime worked will be paid to the employee. No compensatory time off for overtime will be allowed with the exception of Water Quality Control Operations. Relief Employees This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. The five Operators share the relief week evenly as they rotate through the five week cycle. Relief employee(s) will be used within the 12-hours shift schedule only when relieving for the System Operators on shift. When not relieving, they will work four eight-hour shifts. When a vacation relief week results in a 36-hour or 48-hour week, the operator working said week shall be paid at one and one-half (1½) time their normal rate of pay for hours that exceed thirty two (32) hours. Relief Duties This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. An employee who is scheduled to perform relief duties shall be available for duty in revolving shifts on any City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 69 of 76 day of the week and may be assigned for relief in any shift without advance notice. Relief employees will be paid standby pay during their relief week. Standby This provision only applies to the Electric System Operators. An employee who is on relief duties is covering standby, and will be compensated according to Article VIII, Section 7 (a) of the Memorandum of Agreement. If the relief employee is onvacation or otherwise unavailable for relief duties, the employee(s) on their three or four-day off period will be first on standby. Management reserves the right to utilize Management personnel as Operators on a short-term, as needed basis, if no Operator is available. Filling Vacant Positions If the City elects to fill a vacancy other than by reassignment of the shift or the utilization of prior or succeeding shift personnel, the following procedure shall be used: Employees will be called according to their position on the Pre-arranged Overtime List (POL), with the person with the lowest balance being the first one called. The purpose of the POL is to fairly distribute the available opportunities. If an employee turns down the overtime, that amount will be added to the employee's POL balance. If an employee cannot be contacted for such assignment, the employee will not have any overtime added to their POL account balance. Shift Changes Shift changes caused by scheduled time off or sick leave will not be considered an official change in shift. Maximum Hours Worked No employee shall work more than 18 consecutive hours. Rest Period In a 12-hour workday, employees are entitled to a rest period of 8 consecutive hours after working 6 hours overtime during the 12 hours immediately before the regularly scheduled hours of work on a workday or non-workday. Holidays Employees who begin their day or night shift on an observed holiday will receive overtime premium in accordance with Article X, Section 3 of the Memorandum of Agreement. Employees who work a schedule where a regular day off falls on a holiday will be paid for the hours they would have normally worked on that day. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 70 of 76 Employees working for Water Quality Control Operations may accrue holiday time convertible to vacation. Sick Leave Sick leave will be earned as indicated in Article XII, Section 1(a) of this MOA, and shall be charged in increments of one hour. Floating Days Off Floating holidays will be made available to eligible employees and used pursuant to Article X, Section 5. Vacation An employee's total entitlement will be converted to hours (eight hours = one day). A workday will consist of 12 hours, and employees taking vacation will be charged 12 hours of use. Two week notification is required for any scheduled time off. Only one person at a time may be scheduled off. It is the intention of the City that vacation be taken in units of one work week; however, with approval of his/her supervisor, an employee may use his/her accrued vacation in units of less than one work week. Meals Shift employees shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time, therefore at City expense. Shift Premium Shift premium will be handled in accordance with the current Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Union, Article VIII, Section 8. Jury Duty Time off for jury duty which occurs on a regularly scheduled workday will result in the employee being credited with up to 12 hours worked, for pay purposes. Employees called for jury duty who are working the evening portion of the 12-hour schedule will be placed, for payroll and scheduling purposes, on the day shift for each scheduled day such employee is required to report for jury duty, and will not be required to work the evening 12-hour shift before or after being required to report for jury duty. However, such employee shall return to work on the day shift upon being released from such duty if there are at least four hours remaining prior to the end of the day shift. All other provisions of Article XII, Section 5, of the current Memorandum of Agreement shall apply. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 71 of 76 APPENDIX E. IN-LIEU PREMIUMS 1. For employees in the following operations assigned to work schedules other than Monday through Friday, the calendar day will be considered the holiday for premium pay of in-lieu scheduling purposes: Communications Water Quality Control Animal Control Golf Course Utilities Services Landfill Open Space Electric System Operator 2. If December 24 and 31 fall on Sunday, then the preceding Friday will be designated for purposes of excused time off, except in the case of Community Services staff who may be scheduled to work on Saturday, in which case Saturday will be designated for purposes of excused time off. For Open Space and Library personnel, designation of excused time off will be based on Park and Library schedules and employee preference. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 72 of 76 APPENDIX F. COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION PROMOTIONS 1. Promotional opportunities within the Communications Division will be carried out in compliance with procedures set forth in Article VI, Section 5, of the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU Local 521, except that: a. In sub-paragraph (e) of Article VI, Section 5, the term "seniority" shall be defined as division seniority. b. Division seniority will be calculated from an employee's first day of employment in the division, minus any unpaid leave. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 73 of 76 APPENDIX G. SIDE LETTER REGARDING – RECOVERY OF CITY TRAINING COSTS In recognition of the extended training provided to affected employees, the Parties agree that the City may recover up to thirty percent (30%) of its cost for training employees, hired on or after July 1, 2012, in the Field Services Representative and Lineperson/Cable Splicer Apprentice classifications if the employee voluntarily terminates from the City or abandons his or her City employment before completing three years of City service in the Field Services Representative or Lineperson/Cable Splicer classification. The amount recovered shall reasonably reflect the City’s cost for the training, but will exclude all wage or benefit costs, and will be prorated to reflect the portion of the thirty-six (36) month post-training service period remaining at the time of the employee’s termination. As of July 1, 2012 thirty percent (30%) of the City’s cost for training employees in the Lineperson/Cable Splicer Apprenticeship Program was $30,000 for the three years of the pre-existing three year program. For the Field Service Representative, thirty percent (30%) of the City’s two year training cost was $5,550. The employee will be required to sign an agreement providing for reimbursement to the City as provided above on the form attached hereto as Appendix H. City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 74 of 76 City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 75 of 76 APPENDIX H. RECOVERY OF TRAINING INVESTMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between ___________ (“Employee”) and the City of Palo Alto (the “City”), as authorized by the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU Local 521. RECITALS A. The purpose of this Agreement is to limit the City’s risk that it will invest substantial sums in the Employee’s training but potentially lose the value of that training if the employee terminates without rendering substantial journey level service to the City after training. B. The City may require reimbursement from Employee of thirty percent (30%) of the total training cost for _______position, subject to abatement when specified service requirements are met. C. On or about (date) City extended to Employee a conditional offer of employment in the position of _________(position), subject to Employee’s agreement to complete the training necessary to perform the duties of _______ (position), under the terms of the training program. The ______(position) requires [description of training], which as of July 1, 2012 cost the City approximately $ over the course of the training. D. This agreement sets forth the Employee’s agreement to reimburse the City for the City’s investment in the Employee’s training if the employee voluntarily terminates from the City prior to the completion of thirty-six months of service following successful completion of the training. THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the terms set forth below: By signing this agreement, the Employee understands that s/he is bound by agrees to the following terms: 1. ____________________________________ (hereafter “Employee”) agrees that in training Employee for the position of _________________________________________, the City of Palo Alto (hereafter “City”) incurs a total cost of $___________. 2. Employee agrees that amounts recoverable under this agreement do not include Employee wage or benefit costs. 3. Employee agrees that in the event he/she voluntarily terminates or abandons his or her employment from the City prior to the completion of thirty-six (36) City of Palo Alto and SEIU Local 521 December 1, 2013- December 1, 2015 Page 76 of 76 months of service following the successful completion of his or her apprenticeship, he/she will repay the City for the cost of training noted above, prorated to reflect the months of service the Employee has completed following successful completion of their training. Employee agrees that for the purpose of this agreement, “time of service” shall begin on the date following the successful completion of the Employee’s training. 4. Employee agrees that the aggregate amount of repayment due will be determined based upon the attached proration table. 5. Employee agrees that repayment shall be due and made in equal monthly installments over the twelve (12) months immediately following termination, on the first of each such month. 6. If Employee does not fully reimburse the City for the amounts due when due, the entire aggregate amount owed will become immediately due, the employee will be deemed in default on this agreement and the City may initiate legal proceedings to collect said amounts. Employee will be responsible for all reasonable collection costs and attorney fees incurred by the City in undertaking such proceedings. The City may elect to forbear taking such action to allow Employee the opportunity to become current on the debt. Such forbearance will not alter the Employee’s default status or adversely affecting the City’s right to later initiate proceedings for recovery pursuant to this Agreement. 7. This agreement shall be effective on the date listed below. DATED: ___________________ ______________________________________ Employee ______________________________________ **Title**, City of Palo Alto APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Accounting Specialist 3.5%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ACCT SPEC 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ACCT ASSISTANT 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ACCT SPEC-LEAD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PAYROLL ANALYST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PAYROLL ANALYST - S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL ACCTG TECH 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL CREDIT/COL SPEC 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Administrative Associate II (Staff Sec)1.5%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ADMIN ASSOC II 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ADMIN ASSOC I 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ADMIN ASSOC III 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% MAILING SVCS SPEC 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% OFFSET EQUIP OPERATOR 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% MANAGEMENT ASST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% MANAGEMENT ASST - S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% EMS SPECIALIST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Animal Control Officer -4.0%4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% ANIMAL CONTROL OFF 4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% ANIMAL ATTENDANT 4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% ANIMAL SERVICE SPEC 4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% ANIMAL SERVICES SPEC II 4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% VETERINARIAN TECH 4.0%2.0%4.0%2.5%8.5% Associate Engineer -5.2%5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ASSOC ENGINEER 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ASSOC POWER ENGR 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ASST ENGINEER 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ASST POWER ENGR 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ENGINEER 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% MARKETING ENG 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% POWER ENGR 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% PLANS CHECK ENGR 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% UTIL ENGR ESTIMATOR 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% UTIL ENGR ESTIMATOR - L 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% PROJECT ENGINEER 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% PROJECT ENGINEER -S 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ELECTRIC PROJECT ENGINEER 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% ELECTRIC PROJECT ENGINEER -S 5.2%2.0%5.2%2.5%9.7% 1 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Building Inspector -2.4%2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% BLDG INSPECTOR 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COOD I 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COOD II 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COOD III 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% PLANNING ARBORIST 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% PLANNING ARBORIST - S 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% PLANS EXAMINER 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% BLDG INSPECTOR SPEC 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% CHF ELEC UNDG INSPEC 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% CHF INSPEC WGW 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% CODE ENFORCEMENT OFF 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% ELEC UNDG INSPEC - L 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% ELEC UNDGD INSPEC 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% SURVEYING ASST 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% SURVEYOR, PUBLIC WORKS 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% INSPECTOR, FIELD SVC 2.4%2.0%2.4%2.5%6.9% Building Service Person 0.2%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% BLDG SERVICEPERSON 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% BLDG SERVICEPERSON-L 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% EQUIP MAINT SERV PER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Buyer -1.1%1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% BUYER 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% ASSOC BUYER 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% SR BUYER 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% SR BUYER - S 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% Chemist -1.1%1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% CHEMIST 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% LAB TECH WQC 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% SR CHEMIST 1.1%2.0%1.1%2.5%5.6% Communications Technician n/a 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COMM TECH 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Community Services Officer -6.4%6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% COMMUNITY SERV OFFCR 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% COMMUNITY SERV OFFCR - L 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% COURT LIAISON OFFICE 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% CRIME ANALYST 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% PROPERTY EVID TECH 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% POL REC SPEC - L 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% POL REC SPEC I 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% POL REC SPEC II 6.4%2.0%6.4%2.5%10.9% 2 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Coord, Recreation Programs 0.8%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD REC PROG 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD PW PROJ 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD TRANS SYS MGMT 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD TRANS SYS MGMT - S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD UTIL PROJ 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD UTIL PROJ - S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD UTIL SAF & SEC 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD UTIL SAF & SEC - S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% COORD ZERO WASTE 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% JR MUSEUM & ZOO EDUCATOR 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PROD ARTS/SCI PROG 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PROG COORD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% THEATER SPECIALIST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% VOLUNTEER COORD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Customer Service Representative 3.2%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% CUST SVC REPRESENT 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% CUST SVC SPEC 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% CUST SVC SPEC - LEAD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL ACCT REP 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL KEY ACCT REP 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ASSOC BUYER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Desktop Technician 2.9%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% DESKTOP TECHNICIAN 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Electrician -1.3%1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% ELECTRICIAN 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% ELECTRICIAN-APPREN 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% ELECTRICIAN-LEAD 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% FACILITIES ELECT 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% INSTRUM ELEC 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% SR INSTRUM ELEC 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% SYSTEM OPERATOR/SCHEDULER 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% ELEC ASST I 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% Engineering Technician II -7.4%7.4%2.0%7.4%2.5%11.9% ENGR TECH II 7.4%2.0%7.4%2.5%11.9% ENGR TECH I 7.4%2.0%7.4%2.5%11.9% ENGR TECH III 7.4%2.0%7.4%2.5%11.9% LANDFILL TECHNICIAN 7.4%2.0%7.4%2.5%11.9% 3 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Environmental Specialist -1.3%1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% IND WASTE INSPEC 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% IND WASTE INVTGTR 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% IND WASTE TECHNICIAN 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% SR IND WASTE INSECT 1.3%2.0%1.3%2.5%5.8% Equipment Operator -5.7%5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% EQUIP OPERATOR 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% EQUIP OPERATOR-LEAD 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% HEAVY EQUIP OPER 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% HEAVY EQUIP OPER-L 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% STREET SWEEPER OP 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% STREET SWEEPER OP-LEAD 5.7%2.0%5.7%2.5%10.2% Facilities Maintenance Lead 13.3%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FACILITIES MAINT-L 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% CEMENT FINISHER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% CEMENT FINISHER-LEAD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FACILITIES ASST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FACILITIES CARPENTER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FACILITIES MECH 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FACILITIES PAINTER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% MAINT. MECHANIC-WELDING 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Library Specialist 1.3%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% LIBRARY SPECIALIST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% LIBRARY ASSOCIATE 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% LIBRARY ASST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Lineperson Cable/Splicer 2.0%0.0%2.5% *LINEPER/CABLE SPL -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *LINEPER/CABLE SPL-L -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *LINEPER/CABLE SPL-T -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *LINEPER/CABLE SPL-TL -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *LNPER/CBL SPL-APPREN -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *UTIL COMPLIANCE TECH -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *UTIL COMPLIANCE TECH - L -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *OVRH UNDERGR TROUBLEMN -7.6%7.6%2.0%7.6%2.5%12.1% *UTIL SYST OPER -15.0%15.0%2.0%15.0%2.5%19.5% 4 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Maintenance Mechanic -0.2%0.2%2.0%0.2%2.5%4.7% METER SHOP LEAD 0.2%2.0%0.2%2.5%4.7% WATER METER REP ASST 0.2%2.0%0.2%2.5%4.7% WATER METER REPAIR 0.2%2.0%0.2%2.5%4.7% WTR MTR CRS CN TEC 0.2%2.0%0.2%2.5%4.7% Meter Reader 0.0%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% METER READER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% METER READER-LEAD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Motorized Equipment Mechanic -5.4%5.4%2.0%5.4%2.5%9.9% MOTOR EQUIP MECH I 5.4%2.0%5.4%2.5%9.9% MOTOR EQUIP MECH II 5.4%2.0%5.4%2.5%9.9% MOTOR EQUIP MECH-L 5.4%2.0%5.4%2.5%9.9% MOBILE SERVICE TECH 5.4%2.0%5.4%2.5%9.9% Park Maintenance Person -3.0%3.0%2.0%3.0%2.5%7.5% PARK MAINT PERSON 3.0%2.0%3.0%2.5%7.5% PARK MAINT - L 3.0%2.0%3.0%2.5%7.5% PARKS / GOLFCREW-LEAD 3.0%2.0%3.0%2.5%7.5% SPRINKLER SYS REPR 3.0%2.0%3.0%2.5%7.5% Park Ranger -5.1%5.1%2.0%5.1%2.5%9.6% *PARK RANGER -5.1%5.1%2.0%5.1%2.5%9.6% *SR RANGER -5.1%5.1%2.0%5.1%2.5%9.6% Parking Enforcement Officer -1.8%1.8%2.0%1.8%2.5%6.3% PARKING ENF OFF 1.8%2.0%1.8%2.5%6.3% PARKING ENF OFF-LEAD 1.8%2.0%1.8%2.5%6.3% Planner -2.8%2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% PLANNER 2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% ASSOCIATE PLANNER 2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% SR PLANNER 2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% CDBG COORD 2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% BLDG/PLG TECHNICIAN 2.8%2.0%2.8%2.5%7.3% Programmer Analyst -9.8%9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% PROG ANALYST 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% BUSINESS ANALYST 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% BUSINESS ANALYST - S 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% SR PROG ANALYST 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% GIS SPECIALIST 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% TECHNOLOGIST 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% TECHNOLOGIST - S 9.8%2.0%9.8%2.5%14.3% 5 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Public Safety Dispatcher II 0.7%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PUB SAFETY DISP II 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PUB SAFETY DISP I 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PUB SAFETY DISP - L 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% PUB SAFETY DISP-FLEX 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Resource Planner n/a 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% RESOURCE PLANNER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ASSOCIATE RES PLANNER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% ASST RES PLANNER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL MKT ANALYST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL MKT ANALYST -S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% SR MKT ANALYST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% SR MKT ANALYST-S 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% UTIL RATE ANALYST 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Senior Librarian -0.7%0.7%2.0%0.7%2.5%5.2% LIBRARIAN 0.7%2.0%0.7%2.5%5.2% SR LIBRARIAN 0.7%2.0%0.7%2.5%5.2% COORD LIBRARY PROG 0.7%2.0%0.7%2.5%5.2% Storekeeper 0.6%0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% STOREKEEPER 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% EQUIP PARTS TECH 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% FLEET SVCS COORD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% SR FLEET SVCS COORD 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% STOREKEEPER-L 0.0%2.0%0.0%2.5%4.5% Street Maint Assistant -4.7%4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% ST MAINT ASST 4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% RESTORATION LEAD 4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% TRAF CONT MAINT I 4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% TRAF CONT MAINT II 4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% TRAF CONT MAINT-L 4.7%2.0%4.7%2.5%9.2% Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer -7.2%7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% TREE TRIM/LN CLR 7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% TREE MAINT ASST 7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% TREE MAINT SPECIALIST 7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% TREE TRIM/LN CLR-L 7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% TREE TRM/LN CLR ASST 7.2%2.0%7.2%2.5%11.7% 6 Print Date: 3/11/2014 APPENDIX A-1 to MOA Between City and SEIU Summary of Market Adjustments and Salary Increases Benchmark Title (Bold)* Job Family Positions (not bold) Market Survey Results Base + Cash + Ins + Ret. Med TOTAL City proposed Market Adj. Salary Increase if agree to Med. Upon Adoption Market Increase to Base Salary Upon Adoption Salary Increase 1st PP including Dec.1, 2014 CITY Proposed Total (over contract term) Utility Locator -10.1%10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL LOCATOR 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% CATHODIC PROTECTION TECH ASST 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% CATHODIC TECH 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% SR UTIL FIELD SVC RE 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL INSTALL/REP 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL INSTALL/REP - WELD 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL INSTALL/REP - WELD - L 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL INSTALL/REP AST 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL INSTALL/REP-L 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% FIELD SVCPERS WGW 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% GAS SYSTEM TECH 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% GAS SYSTEM TECH II 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% UTIL FLD SVCS REP 10.1%2.0%10.1%2.5%14.6% WQC Plant Operator II -3.8%3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% WQC PLT OPER II 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% WQC PLT OPER I 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% WQC PLT OPER TRN 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% SR MECH 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% SR OPERATOR WQC 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% WATER SYSTEM OPER I 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% WATER SYSTEM OPER II 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% SR WATER SYS OPER 3.8%2.0%3.8%2.5%8.3% *MAINT MECH -10.0%10.0%2.0%10.0%2.5%14.5% Average Increase- 2 year term 7.70% Median Increase- 2 year term 6.90% * Special adjustment to address recruitment/retention or inadequate comparables 7 Print Date: 3/11/2014 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual 206 Non-exempt Account Assistant Step 1 $20.11 Step 1 $20.61 Step 2 $21.16 Step 2 $21.69 Step 3 $22.28 Step 3 $22.83 Step 4 $23.45 Step 4 $24.04 Step 5 $24.68 $4,277.87 $51,334.40 Step 5 $25.30 $4,385.33 $52,624.00 204 Non-exempt Acct Spec Step 1 $23.49 Step 1 $24.07 Step 2 $24.72 Step 2 $25.34 Step 3 $26.02 Step 3 $26.67 Step 4 $27.39 Step 4 $28.08 Step 5 $28.84 $4,998.93 $59,987.20 Step 5 $29.56 $5,123.73 $61,484.80 207 Non-exempt Acct Spec-Lead Step 1 $25.14 Step 1 $25.77 Step 2 $26.46 Step 2 $27.12 Step 3 $27.86 Step 3 $28.55 Step 4 $29.32 Step 4 $30.05 Step 5 $30.87 $5,350.80 $64,209.60 Step 5 $31.64 $5,484.27 $65,811.20 294 Non-exempt Administrative Associate I Step 1 $23.09 Step 1 $23.67 Step 2 $24.30 Step 2 $24.91 Step 3 $25.58 Step 3 $26.22 Step 4 $26.93 Step 4 $27.60 Step 5 $28.35 $4,914.00 $58,968.00 Step 5 $29.05 $5,035.33 $60,424.00 295 Non-exempt Administrative Associate II Step 1 $25.09 Step 1 $25.72 Step 2 $26.41 Step 2 $27.07 Step 3 $27.80 Step 3 $28.50 Step 4 $29.26 Step 4 $30.00 Step 5 $30.80 $5,338.67 $64,064.00 Step 5 $31.57 $5,472.13 $65,665.60 296 Non-exempt Administrative Associate III Step 1 $26.89 Step 1 $27.57 Step 2 $28.31 Step 2 $29.02 Step 3 $29.80 Step 3 $30.54 Step 4 $31.37 Step 4 $32.15 Step 5 $33.02 $5,723.47 $68,681.60 Step 5 $33.84 $5,865.60 $70,387.20 277 Non-exempt Animal Attendant Step 1 $22.06 Step 1 $22.61 Step 2 $23.22 Step 2 $23.80 Step 3 $24.44 Step 3 $25.05 Step 4 $25.73 Step 4 $26.37 Step 5 $27.08 $4,693.87 $56,326.40 Step 5 $27.76 $4,811.73 $57,740.80 Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 1 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 276 Non-exempt Animal Control Off Step 1 $23.63 Step 1 $24.22 Step 2 $24.88 Step 2 $25.50 Step 3 $26.18 Step 3 $26.84 Step 4 $27.56 Step 4 $28.25 Step 5 $29.01 $5,028.40 $60,340.80 Step 5 $29.74 $5,154.93 $61,859.20 263 Non-exempt Animal Services Spec Step 1 $23.30 Step 1 $23.89 Step 2 $24.53 Step 2 $25.14 Step 3 $25.82 Step 3 $26.47 Step 4 $27.18 Step 4 $27.86 Step 5 $28.61 $4,959.07 $59,508.80 Step 5 $29.33 $5,083.87 $61,006.40 275 Non-exempt Animal Services Spec II Step 1 $25.70 Step 1 $26.34 Step 2 $27.05 Step 2 $27.72 Step 3 $28.47 Step 3 $29.18 Step 4 $29.97 Step 4 $30.72 Step 5 $31.55 $5,468.67 $65,624.00 Step 5 $32.34 $5,605.60 $67,267.20 244 Non-exempt Assoc Buyer Step 1 $30.09 Step 1 $30.85 Step 2 $31.68 Step 2 $32.47 Step 3 $33.35 Step 3 $34.18 Step 4 $35.10 Step 4 $35.98 Step 5 $36.95 $6,404.67 $76,856.00 Step 5 $37.87 $6,564.13 $78,769.60 333 Non-exempt Assoc Engineer Step 1 $37.08 Step 1 $38.00 Step 2 $39.03 Step 2 $40.00 Step 3 $41.08 Step 3 $42.11 Step 4 $43.24 Step 4 $44.32 Step 5 $45.52 $7,890.13 $94,681.60 Step 5 $46.66 $8,087.73 $97,052.80 353 Non-exempt Assoc Planner Step 1 $34.32 Step 1 $35.17 Step 2 $36.12 Step 2 $37.03 Step 3 $38.02 Step 3 $38.97 Step 4 $40.02 Step 4 $41.03 Step 5 $42.13 $7,302.53 $87,630.40 Step 5 $43.18 $7,484.53 $89,814.40 247 Non-exempt Assoc Power Engr Step 1 $39.47 Step 1 $40.46 Step 2 $41.55 Step 2 $42.59 Step 3 $43.73 Step 3 $44.83 Step 4 $46.04 Step 4 $47.19 Step 5 $48.46 $8,399.73 $100,796.80 Step 5 $49.67 $8,609.47 $103,313.60 269 Non-exempt Assoc Res Planner Step 1 $38.23 Step 1 $39.18 Step 2 $40.24 Step 2 $41.24 Step 3 $42.35 Step 3 $43.41 Step 4 $44.58 Step 4 $45.70 Step 5 $46.93 $8,134.53 $97,614.40 Step 5 $48.10 $8,337.33 $100,048.00 2 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 330 Non-exempt Asst Engineer Step 1 $33.57 Step 1 $34.41 Step 2 $35.34 Step 2 $36.22 Step 3 $37.20 Step 3 $38.13 Step 4 $39.15 Step 4 $40.13 Step 5 $41.22 $7,144.80 $85,737.60 Step 5 $42.25 $7,323.33 $87,880.00 256 Non-exempt Asst Power Engr Step 1 $35.63 Step 1 $36.52 Step 2 $37.51 Step 2 $38.45 Step 3 $39.48 Step 3 $40.47 Step 4 $41.56 Step 4 $42.60 Step 5 $43.75 $7,583.33 $91,000.00 Step 5 $44.84 $7,772.27 $93,267.20 268 Non-exempt Asst Res Planner Step 1 $34.50 Step 1 $35.37 Step 2 $36.32 Step 2 $37.23 Step 3 $38.23 Step 3 $39.19 Step 4 $40.24 Step 4 $41.25 Step 5 $42.36 $7,342.40 $88,108.80 Step 5 $43.42 $7,526.13 $90,313.60 299 Non-exempt Bldg Inspector Step 1 $33.78 Step 1 $34.63 Step 2 $35.56 Step 2 $36.45 Step 3 $37.43 Step 3 $38.37 Step 4 $39.40 Step 4 $40.39 Step 5 $41.48 $7,189.87 $86,278.40 Step 5 $42.51 $7,368.40 $88,420.80 300 Non-exempt Bldg Inspector Spec Step 1 $36.06 Step 1 $36.96 Step 2 $37.96 Step 2 $38.91 Step 3 $39.96 Step 3 $40.96 Step 4 $42.06 Step 4 $43.11 Step 5 $44.28 $7,675.20 $92,102.40 Step 5 $45.38 $7,865.87 $94,390.40 370 Non-exempt Bldg Serviceperson Step 1 $20.06 Step 1 $20.56 Step 2 $21.11 Step 2 $21.64 Step 3 $22.22 Step 3 $22.78 Step 4 $23.39 Step 4 $23.98 Step 5 $24.62 $4,267.47 $51,209.60 Step 5 $25.24 $4,374.93 $52,499.20 371 Non-exempt Bldg Serviceperson-L Step 1 $21.47 Step 1 $22.00 Step 2 $22.60 Step 2 $23.16 Step 3 $23.79 Step 3 $24.38 Step 4 $25.04 Step 4 $25.66 Step 5 $26.36 $4,569.07 $54,828.80 Step 5 $27.02 $4,683.47 $56,201.60 355 Non-exempt Bldg/Plg Technician Step 1 $27.83 Step 1 $28.52 Step 2 $29.29 Step 2 $30.02 Step 3 $30.83 Step 3 $31.60 Step 4 $32.45 Step 4 $33.27 Step 5 $34.16 $5,921.07 $71,052.80 Step 5 $35.02 $6,070.13 $72,841.60 340 Non-exempt Business Analyst Step 1 $45.69 Step 1 $46.84 Step 2 $48.10 Step 2 $49.30 Step 3 $50.63 Step 3 $51.89 Step 4 $53.29 Step 4 $54.63 Step 5 $56.10 $9,724.00 $116,688.00 Step 5 $57.50 $9,966.67 $119,600.00 3 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 3400 Non-exempt Business Analyst - S Step 1 $45.69 Step 1 $46.84 Step 2 $48.10 Step 2 $49.30 Step 3 $50.63 Step 3 $51.89 Step 4 $53.29 Step 4 $54.63 Step 5 $56.10 $9,724.00 $116,688.00 Step 5 $57.50 $9,966.67 $119,600.00 212 Non-exempt Buyer Step 1 $33.14 Step 1 $33.96 Step 2 $34.88 Step 2 $35.75 Step 3 $36.72 Step 3 $37.63 Step 4 $38.65 Step 4 $39.61 Step 5 $40.68 $7,051.20 $84,614.40 Step 5 $41.70 $7,228.00 $86,736.00 464 Non-exempt Cathodic Protection Tech Assistant Step 1 $31.41 Step 1 $32.20 Step 2 $33.06 Step 2 $33.89 Step 3 $34.80 Step 3 $35.67 Step 4 $36.64 Step 4 $37.55 Step 5 $38.56 $6,683.73 $80,204.80 Step 5 $39.53 $6,851.87 $82,222.40 536 Non-exempt Cathodic Tech Step 1 $38.56 Step 1 $39.53 Step 2 $40.59 Step 2 $41.61 Step 3 $42.73 Step 3 $43.80 Step 4 $44.98 Step 4 $46.10 Step 5 $47.35 $8,207.33 $98,488.00 Step 5 $48.53 $8,411.87 $100,942.40 208 Non-exempt CDBG Coordinator Step 1 $36.68 Step 1 $37.60 Step 2 $38.61 Step 2 $39.58 Step 3 $40.64 Step 3 $41.66 Step 4 $42.78 Step 4 $43.85 Step 5 $45.04 $7,806.93 $93,683.20 Step 5 $46.16 $8,001.07 $96,012.80 408 Non-exempt Cement Finisher Step 1 $28.17 Step 1 $28.88 Step 2 $29.66 Step 2 $30.40 Step 3 $31.22 Step 3 $32.00 Step 4 $32.86 Step 4 $33.68 Step 5 $34.59 $5,995.60 $71,947.20 Step 5 $35.45 $6,144.67 $73,736.00 409 Non-exempt Cement Finisher Lead Step 1 $30.14 Step 1 $30.89 Step 2 $31.73 Step 2 $32.52 Step 3 $33.40 Step 3 $34.23 Step 4 $35.16 Step 4 $36.03 Step 5 $37.01 $6,415.07 $76,980.80 Step 5 $37.93 $6,574.53 $78,894.40 502 Non-exempt Chemist Step 1 $33.72 Step 1 $34.56 Step 2 $35.49 Step 2 $36.38 Step 3 $37.36 Step 3 $38.29 Step 4 $39.32 Step 4 $40.31 Step 5 $41.39 $7,174.27 $86,091.20 Step 5 $42.43 $7,354.53 $88,254.40 297 Non-exempt Chf Elec Undg Inspec Step 1 $37.37 Step 1 $38.31 Step 2 $39.34 Step 2 $40.32 Step 3 $41.41 Step 3 $42.45 Step 4 $43.59 Step 4 $44.68 Step 5 $45.88 $7,952.53 $95,430.40 Step 5 $47.03 $8,151.87 $97,822.40 4 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 239 Non-exempt Chf Inspec WGW Step 1 $36.14 Step 1 $37.04 Step 2 $38.04 Step 2 $38.99 Step 3 $40.04 Step 3 $41.04 Step 4 $42.15 Step 4 $43.20 Step 5 $44.37 $7,690.80 $92,289.60 Step 5 $45.48 $7,883.20 $94,598.40 301 Non-exempt Code Enforcement Off Step 1 $32.45 Step 1 $33.26 Step 2 $34.15 Step 2 $35.01 Step 3 $35.95 Step 3 $36.85 Step 4 $37.84 Step 4 $38.79 Step 5 $39.84 $6,905.60 $82,867.20 Step 5 $40.83 $7,077.20 $84,926.40 306 Non-exempt Comm Tech Step 1 $34.51 Step 1 $35.37 Step 2 $36.33 Step 2 $37.24 Step 3 $38.24 Step 3 $39.20 Step 4 $40.25 Step 4 $41.26 Step 5 $42.37 $7,344.13 $88,129.60 Step 5 $43.43 $7,527.87 $90,334.40 702 Non-exempt Community Serv Offcr Step 1 $24.64 Step 1 $25.25 Step 2 $25.93 Step 2 $26.58 Step 3 $27.30 Step 3 $27.98 Step 4 $28.73 Step 4 $29.45 Step 5 $30.25 $5,243.33 $62,920.00 Step 5 $31.00 $5,373.33 $64,480.00 320 Non-exempt Community Service Officer - Lead Step 1 $26.35 Step 1 $27.01 Step 2 $27.74 Step 2 $28.43 Step 3 $29.20 Step 3 $29.93 Step 4 $30.73 Step 4 $31.50 Step 5 $32.35 $5,607.33 $67,288.00 Step 5 $33.16 $5,747.73 $68,972.80 341 Non-exempt Coor Trans Sys Mgmt Step 1 $34.87 Step 1 $35.74 Step 2 $36.70 Step 2 $37.62 Step 3 $38.64 Step 3 $39.60 Step 4 $40.67 Step 4 $41.69 Step 5 $42.81 $7,420.40 $89,044.80 Step 5 $43.88 $7,605.87 $91,270.40 3410 Non-exempt Coor Trans Sys Mgmt - S Step 1 $34.87 Step 1 $35.74 Step 2 $36.70 Step 2 $37.62 Step 3 $38.64 Step 3 $39.60 Step 4 $40.67 Step 4 $41.69 Step 5 $42.81 $7,420.40 $89,044.80 Step 5 $43.88 $7,605.87 $91,270.40 255 Non-exempt Coord Library Prog Step 1 $31.77 Step 1 $32.56 Step 2 $33.44 Step 2 $34.27 Step 3 $35.20 Step 3 $36.08 Step 4 $37.05 Step 4 $37.98 Step 5 $39.00 $6,760.00 $81,120.00 Step 5 $39.98 $6,929.87 $83,158.40 342 Non-exempt Coord Pub Wks Proj Step 1 $33.13 Step 1 $33.96 Step 2 $34.88 Step 2 $35.75 Step 3 $36.71 Step 3 $37.63 Step 4 $38.64 Step 4 $39.61 Step 5 $40.68 $7,051.20 $84,614.40 Step 5 $41.69 $7,226.27 $86,715.20 5 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 317 Non-exempt Coord Rec Prog Step 1 $28.45 Step 1 $29.17 Step 2 $29.95 Step 2 $30.70 Step 3 $31.53 Step 3 $32.32 Step 4 $33.19 Step 4 $34.02 Step 5 $34.94 $6,056.27 $72,675.20 Step 5 $35.81 $6,207.07 $74,484.80 343 Non-exempt Coord Util Saf & Sec Step 1 $37.64 Step 1 $38.58 Step 2 $39.62 Step 2 $40.62 Step 3 $41.71 Step 3 $42.75 Step 4 $43.91 Step 4 $45.00 Step 5 $46.22 $8,011.47 $96,137.60 Step 5 $47.37 $8,210.80 $98,529.60 3430 Non-exempt Coord Util Saf & Sec - S Step 1 $37.64 Step 1 $38.58 Step 2 $39.62 Step 2 $40.62 Step 3 $41.71 Step 3 $42.75 Step 4 $43.91 Step 4 $45.00 Step 5 $46.22 $8,011.47 $96,137.60 Step 5 $47.37 $8,210.80 $98,529.60 344 Non-exempt Coord Utility Proj Step 1 $35.77 Step 1 $36.67 Step 2 $37.66 Step 2 $38.60 Step 3 $39.64 Step 3 $40.63 Step 4 $41.73 Step 4 $42.77 Step 5 $43.92 $7,612.80 $91,353.60 Step 5 $45.02 $7,803.47 $93,641.60 3440 Non-exempt Coord Utility Proj - S Step 1 $35.77 Step 1 $36.67 Step 2 $37.66 Step 2 $38.60 Step 3 $39.64 Step 3 $40.63 Step 4 $41.73 Step 4 $42.77 Step 5 $43.92 $7,612.80 $91,353.60 Step 5 $45.02 $7,803.47 $93,641.60 242 Non-exempt Coord Zero Waste Step 1 $31.81 Step 1 $32.61 Step 2 $33.49 Step 2 $34.32 Step 3 $35.25 Step 3 $36.13 Step 4 $37.10 Step 4 $38.03 Step 5 $39.06 $6,770.40 $81,244.80 Step 5 $40.03 $6,938.53 $83,262.40 205 Non-exempt Court Liaison Officer Step 1 $32.07 Step 1 $32.87 Step 2 $33.76 Step 2 $34.60 Step 3 $35.54 Step 3 $36.42 Step 4 $37.41 Step 4 $38.34 Step 5 $39.37 $6,824.13 $81,889.60 Step 5 $40.36 $6,995.73 $83,948.80 214 Non-exempt Crime Analyst Step 1 $32.07 Step 1 $32.87 Step 2 $33.76 Step 2 $34.60 Step 3 $35.54 Step 3 $36.42 Step 4 $37.41 Step 4 $38.34 Step 5 $39.37 $6,824.13 $81,889.60 Step 5 $40.36 $6,995.73 $83,948.80 6 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 415 Non-exempt Cust Srv Specialist-L Step 1 $29.35 Step 1 $30.09 Step 2 $30.90 Step 2 $31.67 Step 3 $32.52 Step 3 $33.34 Step 4 $34.23 Step 4 $35.09 Step 5 $36.04 $6,246.93 $74,963.20 Step 5 $36.94 $6,402.93 $76,835.20 218 Non-exempt Cust Svc Represent Step 1 $24.96 Step 1 $25.58 Step 2 $26.27 Step 2 $26.93 Step 3 $27.65 Step 3 $28.34 Step 4 $29.11 Step 4 $29.84 Step 5 $30.64 $5,310.93 $63,731.20 Step 5 $31.41 $5,444.40 $65,332.80 217 Non-exempt Cust Svc Spec Step 1 $27.45 Step 1 $28.14 Step 2 $28.89 Step 2 $29.62 Step 3 $30.42 Step 3 $31.18 Step 4 $32.02 Step 4 $32.82 Step 5 $33.70 $5,841.33 $70,096.00 Step 5 $34.54 $5,986.93 $71,843.20 260 Non-exempt Desktop Technician Step 1 $29.92 Step 1 $30.66 Step 2 $31.49 Step 2 $32.28 Step 3 $33.15 Step 3 $33.98 Step 4 $34.89 Step 4 $35.77 Step 5 $36.73 $6,366.53 $76,398.40 Step 5 $37.65 $6,526.00 $78,312.00 514 Non-exempt Development Project Coordinator I Step 1 $25.95 Step 1 $26.60 Step 2 $27.31 Step 2 $28.00 Step 3 $28.75 Step 3 $29.47 Step 4 $30.26 Step 4 $31.02 Step 5 $31.86 $5,522.40 $66,268.80 Step 5 $32.65 $5,659.33 $67,912.00 515 Non-exempt Development Project Coordinator II Step 1 $29.49 Step 1 $30.22 Step 2 $31.04 Step 2 $31.81 Step 3 $32.67 Step 3 $33.49 Step 4 $34.39 Step 4 $35.25 Step 5 $36.20 $6,274.67 $75,296.00 Step 5 $37.11 $6,432.40 $77,188.80 516 Non-exempt Development Project Coordinator III Step 1 $32.52 Step 1 $33.33 Step 2 $34.23 Step 2 $35.08 Step 3 $36.03 Step 3 $36.93 Step 4 $37.92 Step 4 $38.87 Step 5 $39.92 $6,919.47 $83,033.60 Step 5 $40.92 $7,092.80 $85,113.60 533 Non-exempt Elec Asst I Step 1 $25.75 Step 1 $26.40 Step 2 $27.11 Step 2 $27.79 Step 3 $28.54 Step 3 $29.25 Step 4 $30.04 Step 4 $30.79 Step 5 $31.62 $5,480.80 $65,769.60 Step 5 $32.41 $5,617.73 $67,412.80 267 Non-exempt Elec Undgd Inspec Step 1 $32.02 Step 1 $32.82 Step 2 $33.71 Step 2 $34.55 Step 3 $35.48 Step 3 $36.37 Step 4 $37.35 Step 4 $38.28 Step 5 $39.31 $6,813.73 $81,764.80 Step 5 $40.30 $6,985.33 $83,824.00 7 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 345 Non-exempt Electric Project Engineer Step 1 $47.28 Step 1 $48.47 Step 2 $49.77 Step 2 $51.02 Step 3 $52.39 Step 3 $53.70 Step 4 $55.15 Step 4 $56.53 Step 5 $58.05 $10,062.00 $120,744.00 Step 5 $59.50 $10,313.33 $123,760.00 3450 Non-exempt Electric Project Engineer - S Step 1 $47.28 Step 1 $48.47 Step 2 $49.77 Step 2 $51.02 Step 3 $52.39 Step 3 $53.70 Step 4 $55.15 Step 4 $56.53 Step 5 $58.05 $10,062.00 $120,744.00 Step 5 $59.50 $10,313.33 $123,760.00 292 Non-exempt Electric Underground Inspector - Lead Step 1 $34.25 Step 1 $35.11 Step 2 $36.05 Step 2 $36.95 Step 3 $37.95 Step 3 $38.90 Step 4 $39.95 Step 4 $40.95 Step 5 $42.05 $7,288.67 $87,464.00 Step 5 $43.10 $7,470.67 $89,648.00 530 Non-exempt Electrician Step 1 $34.45 Step 1 $35.31 Step 2 $36.26 Step 2 $37.17 Step 3 $38.17 Step 3 $39.12 Step 4 $40.18 Step 4 $41.18 Step 5 $42.29 $7,330.27 $87,963.20 Step 5 $43.35 $7,514.00 $90,168.00 529 Non-exempt Electrician-Appren Step 1 $32.60 Step 1 $33.42 Step 2 $34.32 Step 2 $35.18 Step 3 $36.13 Step 3 $37.03 Step 4 $38.03 Step 4 $38.98 Step 5 $40.03 $6,938.53 $83,262.40 Step 5 $41.03 $7,111.87 $85,342.40 535 Non-exempt Electrician-Lead Step 1 $36.88 Step 1 $37.80 Step 2 $38.82 Step 2 $39.79 Step 3 $40.86 Step 3 $41.88 Step 4 $43.01 Step 4 $44.09 Step 5 $45.28 $7,848.53 $94,182.40 Step 5 $46.41 $8,044.40 $96,532.80 399 Non-exempt Emergency Med Svs Data Specialist Step 1 $27.30 Step 1 $27.98 Step 2 $28.73 Step 2 $29.45 Step 3 $30.25 Step 3 $31.00 Step 4 $31.84 Step 4 $32.63 Step 5 $33.51 $5,808.40 $69,700.80 Step 5 $34.35 $5,954.00 $71,448.00 311 Non-exempt Eng Tech I Step 1 $25.10 Step 1 $25.73 Step 2 $26.42 Step 2 $27.08 Step 3 $27.81 Step 3 $28.51 Step 4 $29.28 Step 4 $30.01 Step 5 $30.82 $5,342.13 $64,105.60 Step 5 $31.59 $5,475.60 $65,707.20 332 Non-exempt Engineer Step 1 $41.76 Step 1 $42.80 Step 2 $43.96 Step 2 $45.06 Step 3 $46.27 Step 3 $47.43 Step 4 $48.71 Step 4 $49.92 Step 5 $51.27 $8,886.80 $106,641.60 Step 5 $52.55 $9,108.67 $109,304.00 8 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 323 Non-exempt Engr Tech II Step 1 $27.16 Step 1 $27.84 Step 2 $28.59 Step 2 $29.31 Step 3 $30.10 Step 3 $30.85 Step 4 $31.68 Step 4 $32.47 Step 5 $33.35 $5,780.67 $69,368.00 Step 5 $34.18 $5,924.53 $71,094.40 319 Non-exempt Engr Tech III Step 1 $30.32 Step 1 $31.08 Step 2 $31.92 Step 2 $32.71 Step 3 $33.60 Step 3 $34.43 Step 4 $35.36 Step 4 $36.25 Step 5 $37.22 $6,451.47 $77,417.60 Step 5 $38.16 $6,614.40 $79,372.80 257 Non-exempt Environmental Spec Step 1 $35.70 Step 1 $36.59 Step 2 $37.58 Step 2 $38.52 Step 3 $39.56 Step 3 $40.55 Step 4 $41.64 Step 4 $42.68 Step 5 $43.83 $7,597.20 $91,166.40 Step 5 $44.93 $7,787.87 $93,454.40 211 Non-exempt Equip Maint Serv Per Step 1 $21.49 Step 1 $22.03 Step 2 $22.62 Step 2 $23.19 Step 3 $23.81 Step 3 $24.41 Step 4 $25.07 Step 4 $25.69 Step 5 $26.39 $4,574.27 $54,891.20 Step 5 $27.05 $4,688.67 $56,264.00 396 Non-exempt Equip Operator Step 1 $26.05 Step 1 $26.71 Step 2 $27.43 Step 2 $28.11 Step 3 $28.87 Step 3 $29.59 Step 4 $30.39 Step 4 $31.15 Step 5 $31.99 $5,544.93 $66,539.20 Step 5 $32.79 $5,683.60 $68,203.20 397 Non-exempt Equip Operator - Lead Step 1 $27.88 Step 1 $28.58 Step 2 $29.35 Step 2 $30.08 Step 3 $30.89 Step 3 $31.67 Step 4 $32.52 Step 4 $33.33 Step 5 $34.23 $5,933.20 $71,198.40 Step 5 $35.09 $6,082.27 $72,987.20 250 Non-exempt Equip Parts Tech Step 1 $23.36 Step 1 $23.95 Step 2 $24.59 Step 2 $25.21 Step 3 $25.89 Step 3 $26.53 Step 4 $27.25 Step 4 $27.93 Step 5 $28.68 $4,971.20 $59,654.40 Step 5 $29.40 $5,096.00 $61,152.00 203 Non-exempt Facilities Asst Step 1 $21.61 Step 1 $22.15 Step 2 $22.75 Step 2 $23.31 Step 3 $23.94 Step 3 $24.54 Step 4 $25.20 Step 4 $25.83 Step 5 $26.53 $4,598.53 $55,182.40 Step 5 $27.19 $4,712.93 $56,555.20 374 Non-exempt Facilities Carpenter Step 1 $28.17 Step 1 $28.88 Step 2 $29.66 Step 2 $30.40 Step 3 $31.22 Step 3 $32.00 Step 4 $32.86 Step 4 $33.68 Step 5 $34.59 $5,995.60 $71,947.20 Step 5 $35.45 $6,144.67 $73,736.00 9 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 375 Non-exempt Facilities Elect Step 1 $28.54 Step 1 $29.25 Step 2 $30.04 Step 2 $30.79 Step 3 $31.62 Step 3 $32.41 Step 4 $33.29 Step 4 $34.12 Step 5 $35.04 $6,073.60 $72,883.20 Step 5 $35.91 $6,224.40 $74,692.80 373 Non-exempt Facilities Maint-L Step 1 $36.41 Step 1 $37.32 Step 2 $38.32 Step 2 $39.28 Step 3 $40.34 Step 3 $41.35 Step 4 $42.46 Step 4 $43.52 Step 5 $44.70 $7,748.00 $92,976.00 Step 5 $45.81 $7,940.40 $95,284.80 376 Non-exempt Facilities Mech Step 1 $28.17 Step 1 $28.88 Step 2 $29.66 Step 2 $30.40 Step 3 $31.22 Step 3 $32.00 Step 4 $32.86 Step 4 $33.68 Step 5 $34.59 $5,995.60 $71,947.20 Step 5 $35.45 $6,144.67 $73,736.00 377 Non-exempt Facilities Painter Step 1 $28.17 Step 1 $28.88 Step 2 $29.66 Step 2 $30.40 Step 3 $31.22 Step 3 $32.00 Step 4 $32.86 Step 4 $33.68 Step 5 $34.59 $5,995.60 $71,947.20 Step 5 $35.45 $6,144.67 $73,736.00 462 Non-exempt Field Service Pers WGW Step 1 $26.11 Step 1 $26.76 Step 2 $27.48 Step 2 $28.17 Step 3 $28.93 Step 3 $29.65 Step 4 $30.45 Step 4 $31.21 Step 5 $32.05 $5,555.33 $66,664.00 Step 5 $32.85 $5,694.00 $68,328.00 383 Non-exempt Fleet Svcs Coord Step 1 $27.84 Step 1 $28.54 Step 2 $29.31 Step 2 $30.04 Step 3 $30.85 Step 3 $31.62 Step 4 $32.47 Step 4 $33.28 Step 5 $34.18 $5,924.53 $71,094.40 Step 5 $35.03 $6,071.87 $72,862.40 489 Non-exempt Gas System Tech Step 1 $28.44 Step 1 $29.15 Step 2 $29.94 Step 2 $30.68 Step 3 $31.51 Step 3 $32.30 Step 4 $33.17 Step 4 $34.00 Step 5 $34.91 $6,051.07 $72,612.80 Step 5 $35.79 $6,203.60 $74,443.20 463 Non-exempt Gas System Tech II Step 1 $29.87 Step 1 $30.61 Step 2 $31.44 Step 2 $32.22 Step 3 $33.09 Step 3 $33.92 Step 4 $34.83 Step 4 $35.70 Step 5 $36.67 $6,356.13 $76,273.60 Step 5 $37.58 $6,513.87 $78,166.40 398 Non-exempt Geographic Inform Syst Specialist Step 1 $38.36 Step 1 $39.32 Step 2 $40.38 Step 2 $41.39 Step 3 $42.50 Step 3 $43.57 Step 4 $44.74 Step 4 $45.86 Step 5 $47.09 $8,162.27 $97,947.20 Step 5 $48.27 $8,366.80 $100,401.60 10 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 390 Non-exempt Heavy Equip Oper Step 1 $29.51 Step 1 $30.24 Step 2 $31.06 Step 2 $31.84 Step 3 $32.69 Step 3 $33.51 Step 4 $34.41 Step 4 $35.27 Step 5 $36.23 $6,279.87 $75,358.40 Step 5 $37.13 $6,435.87 $77,230.40 391 Non-exempt Heavy Equip Oper-L Step 1 $31.56 Step 1 $32.35 Step 2 $33.22 Step 2 $34.05 Step 3 $34.97 Step 3 $35.84 Step 4 $36.81 Step 4 $37.73 Step 5 $38.75 $6,716.67 $80,600.00 Step 5 $39.72 $6,884.80 $82,617.60 508 Non-exempt Ind Waste Inspec Step 1 $29.99 Step 1 $30.74 Step 2 $31.57 Step 2 $32.36 Step 3 $33.24 Step 3 $34.07 Step 4 $34.98 Step 4 $35.86 Step 5 $36.83 $6,383.87 $76,606.40 Step 5 $37.75 $6,543.33 $78,520.00 258 Non-exempt Ind Waste Invtgtr Step 1 $33.71 Step 1 $34.55 Step 2 $35.48 Step 2 $36.37 Step 3 $37.35 Step 3 $38.28 Step 4 $39.31 Step 4 $40.30 Step 5 $41.38 $7,172.53 $86,070.40 Step 5 $42.42 $7,352.80 $88,233.60 365 Non-exempt Industrial Waste Technician Step 1 $27.08 Step 1 $27.76 Step 2 $28.51 Step 2 $29.22 Step 3 $30.01 Step 3 $30.76 Step 4 $31.59 Step 4 $32.38 Step 5 $33.25 $5,763.33 $69,160.00 Step 5 $34.08 $5,907.20 $70,886.40 227 Non-exempt Inspector, Field Svc Step 1 $32.63 Step 1 $33.44 Step 2 $34.34 Step 2 $35.20 Step 3 $36.15 Step 3 $37.05 Step 4 $38.05 Step 4 $39.00 Step 5 $40.06 $6,943.73 $83,324.80 Step 5 $41.06 $7,117.07 $85,404.80 308 Non-exempt Instrum Elec Step 1 $32.48 Step 1 $33.29 Step 2 $34.19 Step 2 $35.04 Step 3 $35.99 Step 3 $36.89 Step 4 $37.88 Step 4 $38.83 Step 5 $39.87 $6,910.80 $82,929.60 Step 5 $40.87 $7,084.13 $85,009.60 293 Non-exempt Junior Museum & Zoo Educator Step 1 $25.46 Step 1 $26.09 Step 2 $26.80 Step 2 $27.47 Step 3 $28.21 Step 3 $28.91 Step 4 $29.69 Step 4 $30.43 Step 5 $31.25 $5,416.67 $65,000.00 Step 5 $32.03 $5,551.87 $66,622.40 503 Non-exempt Laboratory Tech Wqc Step 1 $30.15 Step 1 $30.91 Step 2 $31.74 Step 2 $32.53 Step 3 $33.41 Step 3 $34.25 Step 4 $35.17 Step 4 $36.05 Step 5 $37.02 $6,416.80 $77,001.60 Step 5 $37.95 $6,578.00 $78,936.00 11 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 413 Non-exempt Landfill Technician Step 1 $33.08 Step 1 $33.90 Step 2 $34.82 Step 2 $35.69 Step 3 $36.65 Step 3 $37.57 Step 4 $38.58 Step 4 $39.54 Step 5 $40.61 $7,039.07 $84,468.80 Step 5 $41.62 $7,214.13 $86,569.60 254 Non-exempt Librarian Step 1 $25.65 Step 1 $26.29 Step 2 $27.00 Step 2 $27.68 Step 3 $28.42 Step 3 $29.13 Step 4 $29.92 Step 4 $30.67 Step 5 $31.49 $5,458.27 $65,499.20 Step 5 $32.28 $5,595.20 $67,142.40 252 Non-exempt Library Associate Step 1 $23.57 Step 1 $24.16 Step 2 $24.81 Step 2 $25.43 Step 3 $26.12 Step 3 $26.77 Step 4 $27.49 Step 4 $28.18 Step 5 $28.94 $5,016.27 $60,195.20 Step 5 $29.66 $5,141.07 $61,692.80 222 Non-exempt Library Asst Step 1 $20.43 Step 1 $20.94 Step 2 $21.50 Step 2 $22.04 Step 3 $22.64 Step 3 $23.20 Step 4 $23.83 Step 4 $24.42 Step 5 $25.08 $4,347.20 $52,166.40 Step 5 $25.71 $4,456.40 $53,476.80 253 Non-exempt Library Specialist Step 1 $22.29 Step 1 $22.85 Step 2 $23.46 Step 2 $24.05 Step 3 $24.70 Step 3 $25.32 Step 4 $26.00 Step 4 $26.65 Step 5 $27.37 $4,744.13 $56,929.60 Step 5 $28.05 $4,862.00 $58,344.00 541 Non-exempt Lineper/Cable Spl Step 1 $40.53 Step 1 $41.54 Step 2 $42.66 Step 2 $43.73 Step 3 $44.91 Step 3 $46.03 Step 4 $47.27 Step 4 $48.46 Step 5 $49.76 $8,625.07 $103,500.80 Step 5 $51.01 $8,841.73 $106,100.80 542 Non-exempt Lineper/Cable Spl-L Step 1 $43.38 Step 1 $44.47 Step 2 $45.67 Step 2 $46.81 Step 3 $48.07 Step 3 $49.27 Step 4 $50.60 Step 4 $51.86 Step 5 $53.26 $9,231.73 $110,780.80 Step 5 $54.59 $9,462.27 $113,547.20 531 Non-exempt Lineperson/Cable Spl-T Step 1 $38.61 Step 1 $39.57 Step 2 $40.64 Step 2 $41.66 Step 3 $42.78 Step 3 $43.85 Step 4 $45.03 Step 4 $46.16 Step 5 $47.40 $8,216.00 $98,592.00 Step 5 $48.59 $8,422.27 $101,067.20 532 Non-exempt Lineperson/Cable Spl-TL Step 1 $41.30 Step 1 $42.33 Step 2 $43.47 Step 2 $44.56 Step 3 $45.76 Step 3 $46.91 Step 4 $48.17 Step 4 $49.37 Step 5 $50.71 $8,789.73 $105,476.80 Step 5 $51.97 $9,008.13 $108,097.60 12 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 528 Non-exempt Lnper/Cbl Spl-Appren Step 1 $34.82 Step 1 $35.69 Step 2 $36.65 Step 2 $37.57 Step 3 $38.58 Step 3 $39.54 Step 4 $40.61 Step 4 $41.63 Step 5 $42.75 $7,410.00 $88,920.00 Step 5 $43.82 $7,595.47 $91,145.60 213 Non-exempt Mailing Svcs Spec Step 1 $19.65 Step 1 $20.14 Step 2 $20.68 Step 2 $21.20 Step 3 $21.77 Step 3 $22.32 Step 4 $22.92 Step 4 $23.49 Step 5 $24.12 $4,180.80 $50,169.60 Step 5 $24.73 $4,286.53 $51,438.40 505 Non-exempt Maint Mech Step 1 $33.18 Step 1 $34.01 Step 2 $34.93 Step 2 $35.80 Step 3 $36.77 Step 3 $37.69 Step 4 $38.70 Step 4 $39.67 Step 5 $40.74 $7,061.60 $84,739.20 Step 5 $41.76 $7,238.40 $86,860.80 291 Non-exempt Maintenance Mechanic-Welding Step 1 $31.38 Step 1 $32.16 Step 2 $33.03 Step 2 $33.86 Step 3 $34.77 Step 3 $35.64 Step 4 $36.60 Step 4 $37.51 Step 5 $38.53 $6,678.53 $80,142.40 Step 5 $39.49 $6,844.93 $82,139.20 346 Non-exempt Management Assistant Step 1 $29.21 Step 1 $29.94 Step 2 $30.75 Step 2 $31.52 Step 3 $32.37 Step 3 $33.18 Step 4 $34.07 Step 4 $34.92 Step 5 $35.86 $6,215.73 $74,588.80 Step 5 $36.76 $6,371.73 $76,460.80 3460 Non-exempt Management Assistant - S Step 1 $29.21 Step 1 $29.94 Step 2 $30.75 Step 2 $31.52 Step 3 $32.37 Step 3 $33.18 Step 4 $34.07 Step 4 $34.92 Step 5 $35.86 $6,215.73 $74,588.80 Step 5 $36.76 $6,371.73 $76,460.80 216 Non-exempt Marketing Eng Step 1 $41.76 Step 1 $42.80 Step 2 $43.96 Step 2 $45.06 Step 3 $46.27 Step 3 $47.43 Step 4 $48.71 Step 4 $49.92 Step 5 $51.27 $8,886.80 $106,641.60 Step 5 $52.55 $9,108.67 $109,304.00 241 Non-exempt Meter Reader Step 1 $23.33 Step 1 $23.91 Step 2 $24.56 Step 2 $25.17 Step 3 $25.85 Step 3 $26.50 Step 4 $27.21 Step 4 $27.89 Step 5 $28.64 $4,964.27 $59,571.20 Step 5 $29.36 $5,089.07 $61,068.80 240 Non-exempt Meter Reader-Lead Step 1 $24.96 Step 1 $25.58 Step 2 $26.27 Step 2 $26.93 Step 3 $27.65 Step 3 $28.34 Step 4 $29.11 Step 4 $29.84 Step 5 $30.64 $5,310.93 $63,731.20 Step 5 $31.41 $5,444.40 $65,332.80 13 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 369 Non-exempt Meter Shop Lead Step 1 $27.71 Step 1 $28.40 Step 2 $29.17 Step 2 $29.89 Step 3 $30.70 Step 3 $31.47 Step 4 $32.32 Step 4 $33.12 Step 5 $34.02 $5,896.80 $70,761.60 Step 5 $34.87 $6,044.13 $72,529.60 TBD Non-exempt Metering Technician Step 1 $38.22 Step 1 $39.17 Step 2 $40.23 Step 2 $41.23 Step 3 $42.35 Step 3 $43.40 Step 4 $44.57 Step 4 $45.69 Step 5 $46.92 $8,132.80 $97,593.60 Step 5 $48.09 $8,335.60 $100,027.20 TBD Non-exempt Metering Technician – Apprentice Step 1 $36.16 Step 1 $37.07 Step 2 $38.07 Step 2 $39.02 Step 3 $40.07 Step 3 $41.07 Step 4 $42.18 Step 4 $43.24 Step 5 $44.40 $7,696.00 $92,352.00 Step 5 $45.51 $7,888.40 $94,660.80 TBD Non-exempt Metering Technician – Lead Step 1 $40.89 Step 1 $41.91 Step 2 $43.04 Step 2 $44.12 Step 3 $45.31 Step 3 $46.44 Step 4 $47.69 Step 4 $48.89 Step 5 $50.20 $8,701.33 $104,416.00 Step 5 $51.46 $8,919.73 $107,036.80 384 Non-exempt Mobile Service Tech Step 1 $33.07 Step 1 $33.90 Step 2 $34.81 Step 2 $35.68 Step 3 $36.65 Step 3 $37.56 Step 4 $38.58 Step 4 $39.54 Step 5 $40.61 $7,039.07 $84,468.80 Step 5 $41.62 $7,214.13 $86,569.60 381 Non-exempt Motor Equip Mech-L Step 1 $33.70 Step 1 $34.54 Step 2 $35.47 Step 2 $36.36 Step 3 $37.34 Step 3 $38.27 Step 4 $39.30 Step 4 $40.28 Step 5 $41.37 $7,170.80 $86,049.60 Step 5 $42.40 $7,349.33 $88,192.00 286 Non-exempt Motor Equipment Mechanic I Step 1 $29.17 Step 1 $29.90 Step 2 $30.70 Step 2 $31.47 Step 3 $32.32 Step 3 $33.13 Step 4 $34.02 Step 4 $34.87 Step 5 $35.81 $6,207.07 $74,484.80 Step 5 $36.71 $6,363.07 $76,356.80 287 Non-exempt Motor Equipment Mechanic II Step 1 $31.50 Step 1 $32.28 Step 2 $33.16 Step 2 $33.98 Step 3 $34.90 Step 3 $35.77 Step 4 $36.74 Step 4 $37.66 Step 5 $38.67 $6,702.80 $80,433.60 Step 5 $39.64 $6,870.93 $82,451.20 230 Non-exempt Offset Equip Op Step 1 $22.62 Step 1 $23.18 Step 2 $23.81 Step 2 $24.40 Step 3 $25.06 Step 3 $25.69 Step 4 $26.38 Step 4 $27.04 Step 5 $27.77 $4,813.47 $57,761.60 Step 5 $28.46 $4,933.07 $59,196.80 14 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 543 Non-exempt Overhead Underground Troubleman Step 1 $40.56 Step 1 $41.57 Step 2 $42.69 Step 2 $43.76 Step 3 $44.94 Step 3 $46.06 Step 4 $47.30 Step 4 $48.49 Step 5 $49.79 $8,630.27 $103,563.20 Step 5 $51.04 $8,846.93 $106,163.20 452 Non-exempt Park Maint - Lead Step 1 $28.56 Step 1 $29.27 Step 2 $30.06 Step 2 $30.81 Step 3 $31.64 Step 3 $32.43 Step 4 $33.31 Step 4 $34.14 Step 5 $35.06 $6,077.07 $72,924.80 Step 5 $35.93 $6,227.87 $74,734.40 451 Non-exempt Park Maint Person Step 1 $24.63 Step 1 $25.24 Step 2 $25.92 Step 2 $26.57 Step 3 $27.29 Step 3 $27.97 Step 4 $28.72 Step 4 $29.44 Step 5 $30.24 $5,241.60 $62,899.20 Step 5 $30.99 $5,371.60 $64,459.20 281 Non-exempt Park Ranger Step 1 $27.66 Step 1 $28.35 Step 2 $29.12 Step 2 $29.85 Step 3 $30.65 Step 3 $31.42 Step 4 $32.26 Step 4 $33.07 Step 5 $33.96 $5,886.40 $70,636.80 Step 5 $34.81 $6,033.73 $72,404.80 243 Non-exempt Parking Enf Off Step 1 $23.23 Step 1 $23.81 Step 2 $24.46 Step 2 $25.07 Step 3 $25.74 Step 3 $26.39 Step 4 $27.10 Step 4 $27.78 Step 5 $28.52 $4,943.47 $59,321.60 Step 5 $29.24 $5,068.27 $60,819.20 282 Non-exempt Parking Enf Off-L Step 1 $24.85 Step 1 $25.47 Step 2 $26.16 Step 2 $26.81 Step 3 $27.53 Step 3 $28.22 Step 4 $28.98 Step 4 $29.71 Step 5 $30.51 $5,288.40 $63,460.80 Step 5 $31.27 $5,420.13 $65,041.60 460 Non-exempt Parks/Golf Crew-Lead Step 1 $26.79 Step 1 $27.46 Step 2 $28.20 Step 2 $28.91 Step 3 $29.69 Step 3 $30.43 Step 4 $31.25 Step 4 $32.03 Step 5 $32.89 $5,700.93 $68,411.20 Step 5 $33.72 $5,844.80 $70,137.60 348 Non-exempt Payroll Analyst Step 1 $28.01 Step 1 $28.71 Step 2 $29.49 Step 2 $30.23 Step 3 $31.04 Step 3 $31.82 Step 4 $32.67 Step 4 $33.49 Step 5 $34.39 $5,960.93 $71,531.20 Step 5 $35.25 $6,110.00 $73,320.00 3480 Non-exempt Payroll Analyst - S Step 1 $28.01 Step 1 $28.71 Step 2 $29.49 Step 2 $30.23 Step 3 $31.04 Step 3 $31.82 Step 4 $32.67 Step 4 $33.49 Step 5 $34.39 $5,960.93 $71,531.20 Step 5 $35.25 $6,110.00 $73,320.00 15 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 352 Non-exempt Planner Step 1 $36.68 Step 1 $37.60 Step 2 $38.61 Step 2 $39.58 Step 3 $40.64 Step 3 $41.66 Step 4 $42.78 Step 4 $43.85 Step 5 $45.04 $7,806.93 $93,683.20 Step 5 $46.16 $8,001.07 $96,012.80 347 Non-exempt Planning Arborist Step 1 $39.52 Step 1 $40.50 Step 2 $41.60 Step 2 $42.64 Step 3 $43.79 Step 3 $44.88 Step 4 $46.09 Step 4 $47.24 Step 5 $48.52 $8,410.13 $100,921.60 Step 5 $49.73 $8,619.87 $103,438.40 3470 Non-exempt Planning Arborist - S Step 1 $39.52 Step 1 $40.50 Step 2 $41.60 Step 2 $42.64 Step 3 $43.79 Step 3 $44.88 Step 4 $46.09 Step 4 $47.24 Step 5 $48.52 $8,410.13 $100,921.60 Step 5 $49.73 $8,619.87 $103,438.40 304 Non-exempt Plans Check Engr Step 1 $40.54 Step 1 $41.56 Step 2 $42.68 Step 2 $43.75 Step 3 $44.93 Step 3 $46.05 Step 4 $47.29 Step 4 $48.47 Step 5 $49.78 $8,628.53 $103,542.40 Step 5 $51.02 $8,843.47 $106,121.60 321 Non-exempt Police Records Specialist - Lead Step 1 $25.51 Step 1 $26.15 Step 2 $26.85 Step 2 $27.53 Step 3 $28.27 Step 3 $28.97 Step 4 $29.76 Step 4 $30.50 Step 5 $31.32 $5,428.80 $65,145.60 Step 5 $32.10 $5,564.00 $66,768.00 313 Non-exempt Police Records Specialist I Step 1 $22.65 Step 1 $23.21 Step 2 $23.84 Step 2 $24.44 Step 3 $25.09 Step 3 $25.72 Step 4 $26.41 Step 4 $27.07 Step 5 $27.80 $4,818.67 $57,824.00 Step 5 $28.50 $4,940.00 $59,280.00 314 Non-exempt Police Records Specialist II Step 1 $23.84 Step 1 $24.44 Step 2 $25.10 Step 2 $25.72 Step 3 $26.42 Step 3 $27.08 Step 4 $27.81 Step 4 $28.50 Step 5 $29.27 $5,073.47 $60,881.60 Step 5 $30.00 $5,200.00 $62,400.00 246 Non-exempt Power Engr Step 1 $44.58 Step 1 $45.70 Step 2 $46.93 Step 2 $48.10 Step 3 $49.40 Step 3 $50.63 Step 4 $52.00 Step 4 $53.30 Step 5 $54.74 $9,488.27 $113,859.20 Step 5 $56.10 $9,724.00 $116,688.00 270 Non-exempt Prod Arts/Sci Prog Step 1 $30.85 Step 1 $31.62 Step 2 $32.47 Step 2 $33.28 Step 3 $34.18 Step 3 $35.03 Step 4 $35.98 Step 4 $36.88 Step 5 $37.87 $6,564.13 $78,769.60 Step 5 $38.82 $6,728.80 $80,745.60 16 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 232 Non-exempt Prog-Analyst Step 1 $36.92 Step 1 $37.84 Step 2 $38.86 Step 2 $39.83 Step 3 $40.91 Step 3 $41.93 Step 4 $43.06 Step 4 $44.14 Step 5 $45.32 $7,855.47 $94,265.60 Step 5 $46.46 $8,053.07 $96,636.80 231 Non-exempt Program Analyst Step 1 $39.46 Step 1 $40.45 Step 2 $41.54 Step 2 $42.58 Step 3 $43.73 Step 3 $44.82 Step 4 $46.03 Step 4 $47.18 Step 5 $48.45 $8,398.00 $100,776.00 Step 5 $49.66 $8,607.73 $103,292.80 265 Non-exempt Program Assistant Step 1 $23.99 Step 1 $24.59 Step 2 $25.26 Step 2 $25.89 Step 3 $26.59 Step 3 $27.25 Step 4 $27.98 Step 4 $28.68 Step 5 $29.46 $5,106.40 $61,276.80 Step 5 $30.19 $5,232.93 $62,795.20 17 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 302 Non-exempt Program Assistant I Step 1 $25.46 Step 1 $26.09 Step 2 $26.80 Step 2 $27.47 Step 3 $28.21 Step 3 $28.91 Step 4 $29.69 Step 4 $30.43 Step 5 $31.25 $5,416.67 $65,000.00 Step 5 $32.03 $5,551.87 $66,622.40 303 Non-exempt Program Assistant II Step 1 $27.36 Step 1 $28.04 Step 2 $28.80 Step 2 $29.52 Step 3 $30.31 Step 3 $31.07 Step 4 $31.91 Step 4 $32.71 Step 5 $33.59 $5,822.27 $69,867.20 Step 5 $34.43 $5,967.87 $71,614.40 368 Non-exempt Program Coordinator Step 1 $26.64 Step 1 $27.30 Step 2 $28.04 Step 2 $28.74 Step 3 $29.51 Step 3 $30.25 Step 4 $31.07 Step 4 $31.84 Step 5 $32.70 $5,668.00 $68,016.00 Step 5 $33.52 $5,810.13 $69,721.60 349 Non-exempt Project Engineer Step 1 $44.94 Step 1 $46.06 Step 2 $47.31 Step 2 $48.49 Step 3 $49.80 Step 3 $51.04 Step 4 $52.42 Step 4 $53.73 Step 5 $55.18 $9,564.53 $114,774.40 Step 5 $56.56 $9,803.73 $117,644.80 3490 Non-exempt Project Engineer - S Step 1 $44.94 Step 1 $46.06 Step 2 $47.31 Step 2 $48.49 Step 3 $49.80 Step 3 $51.04 Step 4 $52.42 Step 4 $53.73 Step 5 $55.18 $9,564.53 $114,774.40 Step 5 $56.56 $9,803.73 $117,644.80 209 Non-exempt Property Evid Tech Step 1 $24.65 Step 1 $25.27 Step 2 $25.95 Step 2 $26.60 Step 3 $27.32 Step 3 $28.00 Step 4 $28.76 Step 4 $29.47 Step 5 $30.27 $5,246.80 $62,961.60 Step 5 $31.03 $5,378.53 $64,542.40 238 Non-exempt Pub Safety Disp-Flex Step 1 $26.49 Step 1 $27.15 Step 2 $27.88 Step 2 $28.58 Step 3 $29.35 Step 3 $30.08 Step 4 $30.89 Step 4 $31.66 Step 5 $32.52 $5,636.80 $67,641.60 Step 5 $33.33 $5,777.20 $69,326.40 315 Non-exempt Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead Step 1 $35.47 Step 1 $36.35 Step 2 $37.33 Step 2 $38.27 Step 3 $39.30 Step 3 $40.28 Step 4 $41.37 Step 4 $42.40 Step 5 $43.54 $7,546.93 $90,563.20 Step 5 $44.63 $7,735.87 $92,830.40 Step 6 $44.63 Step 6 $45.75 Step 7 $45.75 Step 7 $46.89 18 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 298 Non-exempt Public Safety Dispatcher I Step 1 $30.01 Step 1 $30.76 Step 2 $31.59 Step 2 $32.38 Step 3 $33.25 Step 3 $34.08 Step 4 $35.00 Step 4 $35.88 Step 5 $36.84 $6,385.60 $76,627.20 Step 5 $37.76 $6,545.07 $78,540.80 Step 6 $37.76 Step 6 $38.71 Step 7 $38.71 Step 7 $39.68 316 Non-exempt Public Safety Dispatcher II Step 1 $31.60 Step 1 $32.39 Step 2 $33.26 Step 2 $34.09 Step 3 $35.01 Step 3 $35.88 Step 4 $36.85 Step 4 $37.77 Step 5 $38.79 $6,723.60 $80,683.20 Step 5 $39.76 $6,891.73 $82,700.80 Step 6 $39.76 Step 6 $40.75 Step 7 $40.75 Step 7 $41.77 262 Non-exempt Resource Planner Step 1 $45.35 Step 1 $46.49 Step 2 $47.74 Step 2 $48.93 Step 3 $50.25 Step 3 $51.51 Step 4 $52.90 Step 4 $54.22 Step 5 $55.68 $9,651.20 $115,814.40 Step 5 $57.07 $9,892.13 $118,705.60 366 Non-exempt Restoration Lead Step 1 $31.56 Step 1 $32.35 Step 2 $33.22 Step 2 $34.05 Step 3 $34.97 Step 3 $35.84 Step 4 $36.81 Step 4 $37.73 Step 5 $38.74 $6,714.93 $80,579.20 Step 5 $39.71 $6,883.07 $82,596.80 TBD Non-exempt SCADA Technologist Step 1 $44.86 Step 1 $45.98 Step 2 $47.22 Step 2 $48.40 Step 3 $49.71 Step 3 $50.95 Step 4 $52.33 Step 4 $53.63 Step 5 $55.08 $9,547.20 $114,566.40 Step 5 $56.46 $9,786.40 $117,436.80 385 Non-exempt Senior Fleet Services Coordinator Step 1 $31.97 Step 1 $32.77 Step 2 $33.65 Step 2 $34.49 Step 3 $35.42 Step 3 $36.31 Step 4 $37.29 Step 4 $38.22 Step 5 $39.25 $6,803.33 $81,640.00 Step 5 $40.23 $6,973.20 $83,678.40 461 Non-exempt Sprinkler Sys Repr Step 1 $25.05 Step 1 $25.67 Step 2 $26.37 Step 2 $27.02 Step 3 $27.75 Step 3 $28.45 Step 4 $29.21 Step 4 $29.94 Step 5 $30.75 $5,330.00 $63,960.00 Step 5 $31.52 $5,463.47 $65,561.60 19 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 360 Non-exempt Sr Buyer Step 1 $33.50 Step 1 $34.33 Step 2 $35.26 Step 2 $36.14 Step 3 $37.12 Step 3 $38.04 Step 4 $39.07 Step 4 $40.05 Step 5 $41.13 $7,129.20 $85,550.40 Step 5 $42.15 $7,306.00 $87,672.00 3600 Non-exempt Sr Buyer - S Step 1 $33.50 Step 1 $34.33 Step 2 $35.26 Step 2 $36.14 Step 3 $37.12 Step 3 $38.04 Step 4 $39.07 Step 4 $40.05 Step 5 $41.13 $7,129.20 $85,550.40 Step 5 $42.15 $7,306.00 $87,672.00 224 Non-exempt Sr Chemist Step 1 $37.47 Step 1 $38.41 Step 2 $39.44 Step 2 $40.43 Step 3 $41.52 Step 3 $42.56 Step 4 $43.70 Step 4 $44.80 Step 5 $46.00 $7,973.33 $95,680.00 Step 5 $47.15 $8,172.67 $98,072.00 544 Non-exempt SR IND WASTE INSECT Step 1 $36.06 Step 1 $36.96 Step 2 $37.96 Step 2 $38.91 Step 3 $39.96 Step 3 $40.96 Step 4 $42.06 Step 4 $43.11 Step 5 $44.28 $7,675.20 $92,102.40 Step 5 $45.38 $7,865.87 $94,390.40 512 Non-exempt Sr Instrum Elect Step 1 $35.47 Step 1 $36.36 Step 2 $37.34 Step 2 $38.27 Step 3 $39.31 Step 3 $40.29 Step 4 $41.37 Step 4 $42.41 Step 5 $43.55 $7,548.67 $90,584.00 Step 5 $44.64 $7,737.60 $92,851.20 251 Non-exempt Sr Librarian Step 1 $29.13 Step 1 $29.86 Step 2 $30.66 Step 2 $31.43 Step 3 $32.28 Step 3 $33.09 Step 4 $33.98 Step 4 $34.83 Step 5 $35.77 $6,200.13 $74,401.60 Step 5 $36.66 $6,354.40 $76,252.80 504 Non-exempt Sr Mech Step 1 $35.68 Step 1 $36.57 Step 2 $37.55 Step 2 $38.49 Step 3 $39.53 Step 3 $40.52 Step 4 $41.61 Step 4 $42.65 Step 5 $43.80 $7,592.00 $91,104.00 Step 5 $44.90 $7,782.67 $93,392.00 361 Non-exempt Sr Mkt Analyst Step 1 $41.61 Step 1 $42.65 Step 2 $43.80 Step 2 $44.90 Step 3 $46.11 Step 3 $47.26 Step 4 $48.54 Step 4 $49.75 Step 5 $51.09 $8,855.60 $106,267.20 Step 5 $52.37 $9,077.47 $108,929.60 20 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 3610 Non-exempt Sr Mkt Analyst - S Step 1 $41.61 Step 1 $42.65 Step 2 $43.80 Step 2 $44.90 Step 3 $46.11 Step 3 $47.26 Step 4 $48.54 Step 4 $49.75 Step 5 $51.09 $8,855.60 $106,267.20 Step 5 $52.37 $9,077.47 $108,929.60 506 Non-exempt Sr Operator Wqc Step 1 $36.08 Step 1 $36.98 Step 2 $37.98 Step 2 $38.93 Step 3 $39.98 Step 3 $40.98 Step 4 $42.08 Step 4 $43.14 Step 5 $44.30 $7,678.67 $92,144.00 Step 5 $45.41 $7,871.07 $94,452.80 318 Non-exempt Sr Planner Step 1 $42.38 Step 1 $43.44 Step 2 $44.61 Step 2 $45.72 Step 3 $46.96 Step 3 $48.13 Step 4 $49.43 Step 4 $50.66 Step 5 $52.03 $9,018.53 $108,222.40 Step 5 $53.33 $9,243.87 $110,926.40 280 Non-exempt Sr Ranger Step 1 $30.61 Step 1 $31.38 Step 2 $32.22 Step 2 $33.03 Step 3 $33.92 Step 3 $34.77 Step 4 $35.71 Step 4 $36.60 Step 5 $37.59 $6,515.60 $78,187.20 Step 5 $38.52 $6,676.80 $80,121.60 261 Non-exempt Sr Util Field Svc Rep Step 1 $34.16 Step 1 $35.01 Step 2 $35.95 Step 2 $36.85 Step 3 $37.85 Step 3 $38.79 Step 4 $39.84 Step 4 $40.83 Step 5 $41.93 $7,267.87 $87,214.40 Step 5 $42.98 $7,449.87 $89,398.40 501 Non-exempt Sr Water Sys Oper Step 1 $36.08 Step 1 $36.98 Step 2 $37.98 Step 2 $38.93 Step 3 $39.98 Step 3 $40.98 Step 4 $42.08 Step 4 $43.14 Step 5 $44.30 $7,678.67 $92,144.00 Step 5 $45.41 $7,871.07 $94,452.80 405 Non-exempt St Maint Asst Step 1 $22.41 Step 1 $22.97 Step 2 $23.59 Step 2 $24.18 Step 3 $24.83 Step 3 $25.45 Step 4 $26.13 Step 4 $26.79 Step 5 $27.51 $4,768.40 $57,220.80 Step 5 $28.20 $4,888.00 $58,656.00 392 Non-exempt St Sweeper Op Step 1 $26.01 Step 1 $26.66 Step 2 $27.38 Step 2 $28.06 Step 3 $28.82 Step 3 $29.54 Step 4 $30.34 Step 4 $31.10 Step 5 $31.93 $5,534.53 $66,414.40 Step 5 $32.73 $5,673.20 $68,078.40 21 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 393 Non-exempt St Sweeper Op-Lead Step 1 $27.83 Step 1 $28.52 Step 2 $29.29 Step 2 $30.03 Step 3 $30.84 Step 3 $31.61 Step 4 $32.46 Step 4 $33.27 Step 5 $34.17 $5,922.80 $71,073.60 Step 5 $35.02 $6,070.13 $72,841.60 248 Non-exempt Storekeeper Step 1 $24.45 Step 1 $25.06 Step 2 $25.74 Step 2 $26.38 Step 3 $27.09 Step 3 $27.77 Step 4 $28.52 Step 4 $29.23 Step 5 $30.02 $5,203.47 $62,441.60 Step 5 $30.77 $5,333.47 $64,001.60 288 Non-exempt Storekeeper-L Step 1 $26.17 Step 1 $26.82 Step 2 $27.55 Step 2 $28.24 Step 3 $29.00 Step 3 $29.72 Step 4 $30.52 Step 4 $31.29 Step 5 $32.13 $5,569.20 $66,830.40 Step 5 $32.93 $5,707.87 $68,494.40 TBD Non-exempt Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber – Apprentice Step 1 $34.59 Step 1 $35.45 Step 2 $36.41 Step 2 $37.32 Step 3 $38.32 Step 3 $39.28 Step 4 $40.34 Step 4 $41.35 Step 5 $42.46 $7,359.73 $88,316.80 Step 5 $43.52 $7,543.47 $90,521.60 TBD Non-exempt Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber – Lead Step 1 $39.11 Step 1 $40.09 Step 2 $41.17 Step 2 $42.20 Step 3 $43.34 Step 3 $44.42 Step 4 $45.62 Step 4 $46.76 Step 5 $48.02 $8,323.47 $99,881.60 Step 5 $49.22 $8,531.47 $102,377.60 TBD Non-exempt Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber Technician Step 1 $36.56 Step 1 $37.47 Step 2 $38.48 Step 2 $39.44 Step 3 $40.50 Step 3 $41.52 Step 4 $42.64 Step 4 $43.70 Step 5 $44.88 $7,779.20 $93,350.40 Step 5 $46.00 $7,973.33 $95,680.00 TBD Non-exempt Substation Electrician Step 1 $39.88 Step 1 $40.88 Step 2 $41.98 Step 2 $43.03 Step 3 $44.19 Step 3 $45.29 Step 4 $46.51 Step 4 $47.67 Step 5 $48.96 $8,486.40 $101,836.80 Step 5 $50.18 $8,697.87 $104,374.40 TBD Non-exempt Substation Electrician - Apprentice Step 1 $37.74 Step 1 $38.69 Step 2 $39.73 Step 2 $40.72 Step 3 $41.82 Step 3 $42.87 Step 4 $44.02 Step 4 $45.12 Step 5 $46.34 $8,032.27 $96,387.20 Step 5 $47.50 $8,233.33 $98,800.00 22 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule TBD Non-exempt Substation Electrician - Lead Step 1 $42.67 Step 1 $43.74 Step 2 $44.92 Step 2 $46.04 Step 3 $47.28 Step 3 $48.46 Step 4 $49.77 Step 4 $51.01 Step 5 $52.39 $9,080.93 $108,971.20 Step 5 $53.70 $9,308.00 $111,696.00 326 Non-exempt Surveying Asst Step 1 $30.35 Step 1 $31.10 Step 2 $31.94 Step 2 $32.74 Step 3 $33.62 Step 3 $34.46 Step 4 $35.39 Step 4 $36.28 Step 5 $37.26 $6,458.40 $77,500.80 Step 5 $38.19 $6,619.60 $79,435.20 325 Non-exempt Surveyor, Public Wks Step 1 $33.02 Step 1 $33.84 Step 2 $34.75 Step 2 $35.62 Step 3 $36.58 Step 3 $37.50 Step 4 $38.51 Step 4 $39.47 Step 5 $40.54 $7,026.93 $84,323.20 Step 5 $41.55 $7,202.00 $86,424.00 309 Non-exempt System Op/Sched Step 1 $37.33 Step 1 $38.27 Step 2 $39.30 Step 2 $40.28 Step 3 $41.37 Step 3 $42.40 Step 4 $43.54 Step 4 $44.63 Step 5 $45.84 $7,945.60 $95,347.20 Step 5 $46.98 $8,143.20 $97,718.40 362 Non-exempt Technologist Step 1 $45.69 Step 1 $46.84 Step 2 $48.10 Step 2 $49.30 Step 3 $50.63 Step 3 $51.89 Step 4 $53.29 Step 4 $54.63 Step 5 $56.10 $9,724.00 $116,688.00 Step 5 $57.50 $9,966.67 $119,600.00 3620 Non-exempt Technologist - S Step 1 $45.69 Step 1 $46.84 Step 2 $48.10 Step 2 $49.30 Step 3 $50.63 Step 3 $51.89 Step 4 $53.29 Step 4 $54.63 Step 5 $56.10 $9,724.00 $116,688.00 Step 5 $57.50 $9,966.67 $119,600.00 229 Non-exempt Theater Specialist Step 1 $33.01 Step 1 $33.83 Step 2 $34.74 Step 2 $35.61 Step 3 $36.57 Step 3 $37.49 Step 4 $38.50 Step 4 $39.46 Step 5 $40.52 $7,023.47 $84,281.60 Step 5 $41.54 $7,200.27 $86,403.20 406 Non-exempt Traf Cont Maint I Step 1 $26.23 Step 1 $26.89 Step 2 $27.62 Step 2 $28.31 Step 3 $29.07 Step 3 $29.80 Step 4 $30.60 Step 4 $31.36 Step 5 $32.21 $5,583.07 $66,996.80 Step 5 $33.01 $5,721.73 $68,660.80 23 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 412 Non-exempt Traf Cont Maint Ii Step 1 $24.29 Step 1 $24.89 Step 2 $25.56 Step 2 $26.20 Step 3 $26.91 Step 3 $27.58 Step 4 $28.33 Step 4 $29.03 Step 5 $29.82 $5,168.80 $62,025.60 Step 5 $30.56 $5,297.07 $63,564.80 407 Non-exempt Traf Cont Maint-L Step 1 $28.06 Step 1 $28.76 Step 2 $29.54 Step 2 $30.28 Step 3 $31.09 Step 3 $31.87 Step 4 $32.73 Step 4 $33.55 Step 5 $34.45 $5,971.33 $71,656.00 Step 5 $35.31 $6,120.40 $73,444.80 435 Non-exempt Tree Maint Asst Step 1 $23.61 Step 1 $24.20 Step 2 $24.85 Step 2 $25.47 Step 3 $26.16 Step 3 $26.81 Step 4 $27.54 Step 4 $28.23 Step 5 $28.99 $5,024.93 $60,299.20 Step 5 $29.71 $5,149.73 $61,796.80 434 Non-exempt Tree Maintenance Specialist Step 1 $27.55 Step 1 $28.24 Step 2 $29.00 Step 2 $29.72 Step 3 $30.52 Step 3 $31.29 Step 4 $32.13 Step 4 $32.93 Step 5 $33.82 $5,862.13 $70,345.60 Step 5 $34.67 $6,009.47 $72,113.60 430 Non-exempt Tree Trim/Ln Clr Step 1 $27.12 Step 1 $27.80 Step 2 $28.55 Step 2 $29.26 Step 3 $30.05 Step 3 $30.80 Step 4 $31.63 Step 4 $32.42 Step 5 $33.30 $5,772.00 $69,264.00 Step 5 $34.13 $5,915.87 $70,990.40 431 Non-exempt Tree Trim/Ln Clr-L Step 1 $29.02 Step 1 $29.74 Step 2 $30.54 Step 2 $31.31 Step 3 $32.15 Step 3 $32.95 Step 4 $33.84 Step 4 $34.69 Step 5 $35.62 $6,174.13 $74,089.60 Step 5 $36.51 $6,328.40 $75,940.80 432 Non-exempt Tree Trm/Ln Clr Asst Step 1 $25.56 Step 1 $26.20 Step 2 $26.91 Step 2 $27.58 Step 3 $28.32 Step 3 $29.03 Step 4 $29.81 Step 4 $30.56 Step 5 $31.38 $5,439.20 $65,270.40 Step 5 $32.17 $5,576.13 $66,913.60 215 Non-exempt Util Acct Rep Step 1 $31.87 Step 1 $32.67 Step 2 $33.55 Step 2 $34.39 Step 3 $35.31 Step 3 $36.20 Step 4 $37.17 Step 4 $38.10 Step 5 $39.13 $6,782.53 $81,390.40 Step 5 $40.11 $6,952.40 $83,428.80 24 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 223 Non-exempt Util Acctg Tech Step 1 $25.38 Step 1 $26.02 Step 2 $26.72 Step 2 $27.38 Step 3 $28.12 Step 3 $28.83 Step 4 $29.60 Step 4 $30.34 Step 5 $31.16 $5,401.07 $64,812.80 Step 5 $31.94 $5,536.27 $66,435.20 272 Non-exempt Util Comp Tech Step 1 $39.11 Step 1 $40.09 Step 2 $41.17 Step 2 $42.20 Step 3 $43.33 Step 3 $44.42 Step 4 $45.62 Step 4 $46.76 Step 5 $48.02 $8,323.47 $99,881.60 Step 5 $49.22 $8,531.47 $102,377.60 273 Non-exempt Util Comp Tech-L Step 1 $41.85 Step 1 $42.89 Step 2 $44.05 Step 2 $45.15 Step 3 $46.37 Step 3 $47.53 Step 4 $48.81 Step 4 $50.03 Step 5 $51.38 $8,905.87 $106,870.40 Step 5 $52.66 $9,127.73 $109,532.80 219 Non-exempt Util Credit/Col Spec Step 1 $30.23 Step 1 $30.99 Step 2 $31.82 Step 2 $32.62 Step 3 $33.50 Step 3 $34.34 Step 4 $35.26 Step 4 $36.14 Step 5 $37.12 $6,434.13 $77,209.60 Step 5 $38.05 $6,595.33 $79,144.00 310 Non-exempt Util Engr Estimator Step 1 $39.25 Step 1 $40.23 Step 2 $41.32 Step 2 $42.35 Step 3 $43.49 Step 3 $44.58 Step 4 $45.78 Step 4 $46.93 Step 5 $48.19 $8,352.93 $100,235.20 Step 5 $49.39 $8,560.93 $102,731.20 486 Non-exempt Util Fld Svcs Rep Step 1 $31.93 Step 1 $32.73 Step 2 $33.61 Step 2 $34.45 Step 3 $35.38 Step 3 $36.27 Step 4 $37.24 Step 4 $38.18 Step 5 $39.20 $6,794.67 $81,536.00 Step 5 $40.18 $6,964.53 $83,574.40 480 Non-exempt Util Install/Rep Step 1 $31.14 Step 1 $31.92 Step 2 $32.78 Step 2 $33.59 Step 3 $34.50 Step 3 $35.36 Step 4 $36.32 Step 4 $37.22 Step 5 $38.23 $6,626.53 $79,518.40 Step 5 $39.18 $6,791.20 $81,494.40 481 Non-exempt Util Install/Rep Ast Step 1 $26.41 Step 1 $27.07 Step 2 $27.80 Step 2 $28.49 Step 3 $29.26 Step 3 $29.99 Step 4 $30.80 Step 4 $31.57 Step 5 $32.42 $5,619.47 $67,433.60 Step 5 $33.23 $5,759.87 $69,118.40 25 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 479 Non-exempt Util Install/Rep-L Step 1 $33.98 Step 1 $34.83 Step 2 $35.77 Step 2 $36.66 Step 3 $37.65 Step 3 $38.59 Step 4 $39.63 Step 4 $40.63 Step 5 $41.72 $7,231.47 $86,777.60 Step 5 $42.76 $7,411.73 $88,940.80 363 Non-exempt Util Key Acct Rep Step 1 $38.59 Step 1 $39.56 Step 2 $40.62 Step 2 $41.64 Step 3 $42.76 Step 3 $43.83 Step 4 $45.01 Step 4 $46.14 Step 5 $47.38 $8,212.53 $98,550.40 Step 5 $48.56 $8,417.07 $101,004.80 271 Non-exempt Util Locator Step 1 $29.31 Step 1 $30.04 Step 2 $30.85 Step 2 $31.62 Step 3 $32.47 Step 3 $33.29 Step 4 $34.18 Step 4 $35.04 Step 5 $35.98 $6,236.53 $74,838.40 Step 5 $36.88 $6,392.53 $76,710.40 364 Non-exempt Util Mkt Analyst Step 1 $34.87 Step 1 $35.74 Step 2 $36.70 Step 2 $37.62 Step 3 $38.64 Step 3 $39.60 Step 4 $40.67 Step 4 $41.69 Step 5 $42.81 $7,420.40 $89,044.80 Step 5 $43.88 $7,605.87 $91,270.40 233 Non-exempt Util Rate Analyst Step 1 $35.34 Step 1 $36.23 Step 2 $37.20 Step 2 $38.13 Step 3 $39.16 Step 3 $40.14 Step 4 $41.22 Step 4 $42.25 Step 5 $43.39 $7,520.93 $90,251.20 Step 5 $44.48 $7,709.87 $92,518.40 307 Non-exempt Util Syst Oper Step 1 $41.38 Step 1 $42.41 Step 2 $43.56 Step 2 $44.65 Step 3 $45.85 Step 3 $47.00 Step 4 $48.26 Step 4 $49.47 Step 5 $50.80 $8,805.33 $105,664.00 Step 5 $52.07 $9,025.47 $108,305.60 284 Non-exempt Utilities Engineer Estimator Lead Step 1 $42.00 Step 1 $43.05 Step 2 $44.21 Step 2 $45.31 Step 3 $46.53 Step 3 $47.70 Step 4 $48.98 Step 4 $50.21 Step 5 $51.56 $8,937.07 $107,244.80 Step 5 $52.85 $9,160.67 $109,928.00 3630 Non-exempt Utility Key Account Rep - S Step 1 $38.59 Step 1 $39.56 Step 2 $40.62 Step 2 $41.64 Step 3 $42.76 Step 3 $43.83 Step 4 $45.01 Step 4 $46.14 Step 5 $47.38 $8,212.53 $98,550.40 Step 5 $48.56 $8,417.07 $101,004.80 26 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 290 Non-exempt Utl Install Repair Lead-Welding Cert Step 1 $34.78 Step 1 $35.65 Step 2 $36.61 Step 2 $37.52 Step 3 $38.53 Step 3 $39.50 Step 4 $40.56 Step 4 $41.58 Step 5 $42.70 $7,401.33 $88,816.00 Step 5 $43.76 $7,585.07 $91,020.80 289 Non-exempt Utl Install Repair-Welding Cert Step 1 $32.36 Step 1 $33.17 Step 2 $34.07 Step 2 $34.92 Step 3 $35.86 Step 3 $36.75 Step 4 $37.75 Step 4 $38.69 Step 5 $39.73 $6,886.53 $82,638.40 Step 5 $40.73 $7,059.87 $84,718.40 278 Non-exempt Veterinarian Tech Step 1 $24.14 Step 1 $24.74 Step 2 $25.41 Step 2 $26.05 Step 3 $26.75 Step 3 $27.42 Step 4 $28.16 Step 4 $28.86 Step 5 $29.64 $5,137.60 $61,651.20 Step 5 $30.38 $5,265.87 $63,190.40 274 Non-exempt Volunteer Coord Step 1 $28.01 Step 1 $28.71 Step 2 $29.49 Step 2 $30.23 Step 3 $31.04 Step 3 $31.82 Step 4 $32.67 Step 4 $33.49 Step 5 $34.39 $5,960.93 $71,531.20 Step 5 $35.25 $6,110.00 $73,320.00 482 Non-exempt Water Meter Rep Asst Step 1 $22.77 Step 1 $23.34 Step 2 $23.97 Step 2 $24.57 Step 3 $25.23 Step 3 $25.86 Step 4 $26.56 Step 4 $27.22 Step 5 $27.95 $4,844.67 $58,136.00 Step 5 $28.65 $4,966.00 $59,592.00 484 Non-exempt Water Meter Repair Step 1 $25.22 Step 1 $25.85 Step 2 $26.54 Step 2 $27.21 Step 3 $27.94 Step 3 $28.64 Step 4 $29.41 Step 4 $30.15 Step 5 $30.96 $5,366.40 $64,396.80 Step 5 $31.73 $5,499.87 $65,998.40 499 Non-exempt Water Sys Oper I Step 1 $27.85 Step 1 $28.55 Step 2 $29.32 Step 2 $30.05 Step 3 $30.86 Step 3 $31.64 Step 4 $32.49 Step 4 $33.30 Step 5 $34.20 $5,928.00 $71,136.00 Step 5 $35.05 $6,075.33 $72,904.00 507 Non-exempt Water Sys Oper II Step 1 $31.82 Step 1 $32.62 Step 2 $33.50 Step 2 $34.33 Step 3 $35.26 Step 3 $36.14 Step 4 $37.11 Step 4 $38.04 Step 5 $39.07 $6,772.13 $81,265.60 Step 5 $40.04 $6,940.27 $83,283.20 500 Non-exempt WQC Plt Oper I Step 1 $27.85 Step 1 $28.55 Step 2 $29.32 Step 2 $30.05 Step 3 $30.86 Step 3 $31.64 Step 4 $32.49 Step 4 $33.30 Step 5 $34.20 $5,928.00 $71,136.00 Step 5 $35.05 $6,075.33 $72,904.00 27 Job FLSA Job Title Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly Approx. Annual Salary Effective 2014-PP26 Salary Effective 2014-PP8 Appendix A-2 MOA Between City of Palo Alto and SEIU 2014-2015 Salary Schedule 509 Non-exempt WQC Plt Oper II Step 1 $31.82 Step 1 $32.62 Step 2 $33.50 Step 2 $34.33 Step 3 $35.26 Step 3 $36.14 Step 4 $37.11 Step 4 $38.04 Step 5 $39.07 $6,772.13 $81,265.60 Step 5 $40.04 $6,940.27 $83,283.20 510 Non-exempt WQC Plt Oper Trn Step 1 $24.52 Step 1 $25.13 Step 2 $25.81 Step 2 $26.45 Step 3 $27.17 Step 3 $27.84 Step 4 $28.60 Step 4 $29.31 Step 5 $30.10 $5,217.33 $62,608.00 Step 5 $30.85 $5,347.33 $64,168.00 226 Non-exempt Wtr Mtr Crs Cn Tec Step 1 $25.87 Step 1 $26.51 Step 2 $27.23 Step 2 $27.91 Step 3 $28.66 Step 3 $29.38 Step 4 $30.17 Step 4 $30.92 Step 5 $31.76 $5,505.07 $66,060.80 Step 5 $32.55 $5,642.00 $67,704.00 28 NOT YET APPROVED 1 140312 dm 0160072 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a New Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Service Employees’ International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) and Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations R E C I T A L S The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. A. Service Employees’ International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) is a recognized employee organization representing certain full- and part-time employees of the City. B. Representatives of the City and SEIU engaged in negotiations and reached a tentative agreement on the terms of a successor Memorandum of Agreement. C. The City has satisfied its obligation under Government Code Section 3505, to meet and confer in good faith over terms of a successor Memorandum of Agreement. SECTION 2. The Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is adopted by the City Council. SECTION 3. Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby amended to read as follows: “1401. Memorandum of Agreement incorporated by reference. Upon adoption by the Palo Alto City Council and for the duration of its effective term, the Memorandum of Agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees’ International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) is hereby incorporated into these Merit System Rules and Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said memorandum shall apply to all employees in classifications represented by SEIU Local 521, except where specifically provided otherwise herein. In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the Merit System Rules and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other provisions as to employees represented by said SEIU Local 521.” SECTION 4. It is not the intent of the City Council in adopting this Resolution to create any right or obligation extending beyond the effective term of the attached Memorandum of Agreement. NOT YET APPROVED 2 140312 dm 0160072 SECTION 5. The Council 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: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources