HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-02 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
May 2, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing
supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding
the meeting.
1 May 2, 2011
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.
Call to Order
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local
1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe
Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
7:30 P.M. or as Soon As Possible Thereafter
Study Session
2.Public Saftey Systems Virtual Consolidation Project
3.Presentation of the City Manager’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
Special Orders of the Day
4.Proclamation Recognizing Municipal Clerks Week May 1-7, 2011
2 May 2, 2011
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.
5.Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Historic Resources Board for
Four Terms ending on May 31, 2014
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes for March 14, 2011 and March 21, 2011
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
6.Approval of Four Contract Documents for the Civic Center Infrastructure
Improvements Project (Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002): (1)
Change Order with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the Amount of $194,817 for
Restroom Remodeling for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $656,130;
(2) Change Order with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in the Amount of
$62,747 for a Data Center Cooling System Upgrade for a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $1,536,542; (3) Change Order with H.A. Bowen Electric,
Inc. in the Amount of $262,076 for Electrical Panel Replacements and Circuit
Tracing for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $1,175,476; and (4)
Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C08124310 with Cambridge
CM, Inc. in the Amount of $83,180 for Extended Construction Management
Services for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $1,282,390
7.Received from Finance Committee: Approval of Contract with Macias Gini &
O'Connell LLP (MGO), in an Amount Not to Exceed $774,596 (including 10%
contingency fee) for External Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Years Ending
June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015
8.Approval of Contract with Communication Strategies for Project Management
Services for Telephone System Replacement and Infrastructure Upgrade in the
Total Amount of $119,700
3 May 2, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
9.Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $135,618 to
Fund the Purchase of a Walk-In Van and a Forklift; Approval of Purchase
Orders with 1) Golden Gate Truck Center in an Amount Not to Exceed $80,726
for the Purchase of a Walk-In Van; and 2) Big Joe Handling Systems in an
Amount Not to Exceed $54,892 for the Purchase of a Forklift (Scheduled
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program Project
VR-11000)
10.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into Amendment
One for contract No. C07118158 with City of Inglewood to Add Collection
Services for Delinquent Parking Citations
11.Adoption of Resolution Requesting Approval from the CalPERS Board of
Administration for Extension of Employment Pursuant to Government Code
Section 21221(h) for Acting City Auditor Michael Edmunds
12.Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El
Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El
Camino Park Resevoir Project
13.Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Daleo Inc. in an Amount
of $4,042,637.15 for Gas Main Replacement Capital Improvement Program GS-
08011 Project 18 and GS-09002 Project 19A in Crescent Park, Charleston
Terrace, Charleston Meadows, Ventura, Green Acres, and Research Park
Subdivisions.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
14.Public Hearing to Hear Objections to the Levy of Proposed Assessments on the
Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of a
Resolution Confirming the Report of the Advisory Board and Levying
4 May 2, 2011
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.
Assessment for Fiscal Year 2012 on the Downtown Palo Alto Business
Improvement District
15.Public Hearing: Request by SummerHill Homes on Behalf of A&D Protocol
Transportations Inc. for a Zone change from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 (Low Density
Multiple-Family/Village Residential), a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
assign the Village Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site
currently designated Single-Family Residential and in use as a
preschool/daycare center at 525 San Antonio Road; and Approval of a Record
of Land Use Action.
16.Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary 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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning
any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that
item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee 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/Committee, but it is very helpful.
5 May 2, 2011
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
Standing Committee Packets from the Administrative Services
Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk
Standing Committee Packets from the Administrative Services
Action Agenda
Action Agenda from the City Clerk
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
Informational Report on Gas System Assessment and Risk Reduction
Palo Alto Library Projects March 2011 Report
Acceptance of Revised Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
City of Palo Alto’s Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year
2011
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1587)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1587)
Summary Title: Tri-Cities Joint CAD Project
Title: Public Saftey Systems Virtual Consolidation Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Police
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue to work cooperatively with the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos towards the
virtual consolidation of public safety technology.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos operate separate public safety
technology systems including computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management systems
(RMS). At present, none of these systems communicate with each other. In 2007, in an effort
to leverage purchasing power and share costs, the three Cities embarked on an effort to
consolidate police and fire department ancillary systems, computer aided dispatch, records
management systems and Police and Fire Mobile applications. Representatives from the three
cities have been working collaboratively towards the goal of sharing a single set of shared
public safety systems, as opposed to each city procuring and supporting separate and disparate
systems from different suppliers.
The three Cities shared the cost of consulting services for the first phase of the project. A
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released to the vendor community in 2007 and from that,
selected vendors were invited to participate in a Request for Proposal (RFP) process in 2008.
After a thorough analysis of the proposals received, including an objective analysis by the
project’s consultant and system demonstrations, the proposal submitted by the Intergraph
Corporation was identified as representing the best choice for the three Cities.
In August 2010, Intergraph Corporation conducted a detailed system design process with
project stakeholders from the three Cities in order to validate the proposed system design and
ensure that all three Cities’ requirements would be met or exceeded. This process included a
hands-on demonstration period for the end-users as well as validation of over one thousand
functions required in the RFP. The project team members have been working with Intergraph to
further refine the scope of the project and to ensure all required features, functions, and
interfaces will be present in the proposed system. The representatives from the three
municipalities and Intergraph have agreed on the required scope for the project and are
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1587)
engaged in the final contract negotiations. The City of Mountain View’s Purchasing Agent is the
lead cost negotiator for the tri-cities.
DISCUSSION
With shared cost savings in mind, the goal for the tri-city consolidation is for real-time
communication and collaboration between the three cities for the day-to-day delivery of public
safety services as well as regional emergencies. Furthermore, it is anticipated that
implementation of a shared CAD/RMS system will result in increased efficiencies, reduced
response times, and improved service delivery through redundancy and leveraged resources. It
is anticipated that there will be personnel savings once the project is complete. The goal for
operational implementation is July of 2012.
Another significant development in 9-1-1 and emergency dispatch service delivery is the advent
of "Next Generation 9-1-1" (NG9-1-1). For the past 40 years, 9-1-1 calls have depended upon
traditional, low-speed, analog telephone infrastructure. While the remainder of the business
and consumer world has embraced and adopted the use of the Internet and wireless
technologies, the 9-1-1 infrastructure has remained essentially unchanged. 9-1-1 Centers in
California and across the Country have been unable to accommodate (for example) emergency
requests from text messages,Internet-based text messaging clients, video-based clients, etc.
The goal of the three Cities in this virtual consolidation project is to adopt a common 9-1-1
emergency telephone system that will allow us to be well-prepared to accommodate NG9-1-1
features and functionality. The use of a common 9-1-1 emergency telephone system amongst
all three Cities will be a cornerstone to the virtual consolidation project,allowing flexible call
routing and handling, as activity levels vary and special situations warrant.
In addition, the tri-city project team is working to identify grant opportunities for a shared, law
enforcement mutual aid channel through. This additional feature would enhance the flexibility
of call routing and handling. Additionally, all three agencies could operate as back-up 9-1-1
centers should any of our centers become inoperable.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Cities are equally sharing a total of $77,120 in consulting services and $60,000 in design
phase costs. The City of Los Altos’ portion for these two costs was $45,681 ($25,681 for
consulting and $20,000 for detailed design review).
In 2009, the City of Palo Alto established a capital improvement project (CIP) with a budget of
$1.3 million for the acquisition of the combined public safety CAD, RMS, and supporting
systems (CIP TE09000). Mountain View has budgeted approximately $1.3 million and Los Altos
has encumbered $740,000. Los Altos has a smaller population and does not dispatch Fire or
EMS resources. Together, the three cities anticipate a final acquisition cost of approximately $3
million for the joint public safety systems. Funding for the replacement of the Cities’ 9-1-1
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1587)
emergency telephone systems is primarily funded by the State 9-1-1 program (via the 9-1-1
surcharge on wireless and landline telephones). Partial funding for a common radio channel has
been allocated by the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and a frequency has
been identified and approved by the FCC.
TIMELINE
Estimated timeline and milestones:
·2011
o 2Q –Sign contract for joint public safety systems (CAD, RMS, AFR, and
supporting systems)
o 2Q –Initiate 9-1-1 telephone system replacement with State 9-1-1 Emergency
Communications Office
o 2Q-4Q –Prepare for new public safety systems (map development, hardware
installation, system configuration, training, and testing)
·2012
o 2Q –Joint public safety systems go live
o 3Q – 9-1-1 Emergency telephone system replacement
o 4Q –Connect/merge 2-way radio systems between the three Cities
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Expenditure of funds are consistent with City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section
15061(b)(3), and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect
on the environment.
Prepared By:Charles Cullen, TSD Coordinator
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1587)
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1654)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1654)
Summary Title: Presentation of the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Title: Presentation of the City Manager’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY)
2012
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Background
Under the Charter, the City Manager is responsible for developing a proposed operating and
capital improvement budget for the City. This study session has been scheduled to present the
FY 2012 Proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Plan Budgets to the City Council. Copies
of the Budget Documents are attached.
Discussion
The City Manager is presenting the FY 2012 Proposed Budgets to the full City Council in advance
of the public budget hearings to be conducted by the Finance Committee.
At the study session, the City Manager will summarize key recommendations and highlight
issues in the FY 2012 Proposed Budget. Staff will briefly review the layout of the budget
document and discuss how best to navigate its contents. The Finance Committee budget
hearings will be held throughout the month of May and into early June. Community Outreach
meetings are also scheduled in May. The Budget Hearing schedule is included as Attachment A.
The public will have the opportunity to listen to budget discussions and give input during the
Finance Committee hearings in May. The Finance Committee will take its recommendations to
the City Council in June. A budget review meeting and public hearing with the City Council is
scheduled for June 13, 2011 with budget adoption scheduled for June 20, 2011.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Hearing Schedule (PDF)
·Attachment B: Budget Documents (PDF)
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1654)
Prepared By:David Ramberg, Assistant Director
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday,
May 2
City Council
City Manager
Proposed Budget
7pm
Council Chambers
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget ‐ Referral to Finance
Committee
Tuesday,
May 3
Finance Committee
Special Meeting
Budget Review
Kick‐Off
7pm
Council Chambers
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, ASD, ASD Internal Service Funds,
Library
Thursday,
May 5
Finance Committee
Special Meeting
7pm
Council Chambers Police, Fire
Thursday,
May 12
Finance Committee
Special Meeting
7pm
Council Chambers CSD, Planning
Tuesday,
May 17
Finance Committee
7pm
Council Chambers Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP
Tuesday,
May 24
Finance Committee
Special Meeting
7pm
Council Chambers
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
Wednesday,
May 25
Finance Committee
Special Meeting
7pm
Council Conf Rm
Municipal Fee Schedule
Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap‐Up
Monday,
June 13
City Council
7pm
Council Chambers Budget Review and Public Hearing
Monday,
June 20
City Council
Special Meeting –
Budget Adoption
7pm
Council Chambers BUDGET ADOPTION
Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed
Operating Budget
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto i
James Keene
City Manager
Pamela Antil
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Lalo Perez
Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer
David Ramberg
Assistant Director of Administrative Services
Joe Saccio
Assistant Director of Administrative Services
Greg Scharff
Finance Committee Chair
CITY COUNCIL
Sid Espinosa, Mayor
Yiaway Yeh, Vice Mayor
Patrick Burt
Larry Klein
Greg Scharff
Karen Holman
Gail Price
Greg Schmid
Nancy Shepherd
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Operating Budget
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012ii
Quality - Superior delivery of services.
Courtesy - Providing service with respect and concern.
Efficiency - Productive, effective use of resources.
Integrity - Straight-forward, honest and fair relations.
Innovation - Excellence in creative thought and implementation.
The
City of
Palo Alto’s Values
The government of
the City of Palo Alto
exists to promote and sustain
a superior quality of life
in Palo Alto.
In partnership
with the community,
our goal is to deliver
cost-effective services
in a personal, responsive,
and innovative manner.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto iii
Budget Acknowledgements
Budget Document Producers
Budget Staff
Amy Javelosa-Rio
Sherry Nikzat
Christine Paras
Gail Wilcox
Dale Wong
Technical Advisor
Myrna McCaleb
Special Contributors
Rob Braulik
Melissa Cavallo
Libby Dame
Tarun Narayan
Dave Yuan
Department Budget Coordinators
Administrative Services Department
Nancy Nagel
City Attorney's Office
Stacy Lavelle
City Auditor's Office
Ian Hagerman
City Clerk's Office
Beth Minor
City Manager's Office
Greg Hermann
Community Services Department
Lam Do
Fire Department
Jeany Clattenburg
Human Resources Department
Elizabeth Egli
Library Department
Susan Bodenlos
Planning & Community Environment Department
Mary Figone
Police Department
Pete Hazarian
Public Works Department
Sharon Macway
Utilities Department
Dave Yuan
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FY 2012
BUDGET ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City Hall Print Shop
is a California Certified Green Business
Uses only non-toxic soy-based inks
Uses post-consumer recycled paper
Recycles all unused paper
Budget Awards
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012iv
Budget Awards
•
CaCifornia Society of:Municipal 'Finance Officers
Certificate of Award
For
Excellence in Operating Budgeting
Fiscal Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011
City of Palo Alto
F .. r mcdi"6 11 .. , ufl<:m 6,,,,,,hlod I" "clo''''''' II,,, £XCI::LL£NC£ A WARO /" ,It<: opeRATING BUDGUCotT£GOR Y.
n ••••• 'n
CS.'IFO ~ ... "'.~,
February 18, 2010
The Government Finance Officers Association
of the United States and Canada
pl'tSlml$ thlit
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR BUDGET PREPARATION
Budget Division
Administrative Services Department
City of Palo Alto, California
TIN C,,'I/ICDI. 0{ RH:Ognlflon fr# Budg., PrfptuQllon I, pru.lII.d by lIN G",...,nlH •• JI
Finance OffiCIII" AutIClalltJII /0 III .... Im/wldu,,/, who h_ /;H" INIT" .... "/"II,, Ih.l,
gowI'" ... ffI/ "",1 tJcnlro>'''Il Q D~II"Il"/'h" 8/1"" ,.,.,,.,,,,,11,,,, A.....,... TIN
Dbllf,."I,h.d BlldRff P,..UlllallQ,. ,01 .. ...-,1, which" Ih. ",.IIaI -..rd /" IlUVUItM.",fII
bo«Jg#ll,.., II ",.,.",'" "' I~. '-"""111 ""II, wItoH ""dg.1I "'. illdpd 10 fIdM,.,
/O/N'Ol''''' .. ~.
Exocull .... Director
0lt6 October 16.1009
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Budget Awards
v
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
D istingu ished
Budget P resen tation
Award
PRESENTED TO
City of Palo Alto
California
For the Biennium Beginning
July 1,2009
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
vi City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto vii
MESSAGE
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
viii City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto ix
Transmittal Letter
Transmittal Letter
May 2, 2011
Honorable City
Council
Palo Alto,
California
Attention:
Finance Committee Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Introduction I submit for your consideration the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Proposed Budget.
Palo Alto is fortunate to have a diverse and mature economic base, which is
anchored by Stanford University and internationally recognized companies,
and plays an integral part in the Silicon Valley economy. Palo Alto is home
to a bustling downtown and a robust business community, with over 91,000
jobs and 4,000 businesses, and has been spared the high unemployment
rates experienced in the rest of California and the nation. We are a
community with a high quality of life, high income levels and home values,
one of the finest school districts in the state, and low crime rates. Our
residents are engaged and active, providing thousands of hours of volunteer
time and expertise in partnership with the City. Palo Alto's wealth of talent
and creative ideas is integral to the strength of our community and will help
us weather the current economic and fiscal challenges and allow the city to
continue to be a great place to live and work.
We are currently in a time of extraordinary flux, requiring ongoing
structural changes. Some of our challenges were brought on by the recent
economic downturn and others by unprecedented increases in costs,
particularly health care and pension costs. There are signs that the
economy is recovering as transient occupancy and sales tax revenues are
stabilizing and starting to increase. However, the impacts on the City of
what has been termed the “Great Recession” will be felt for many years.
Many believe the economy has entered a “new normal” where former levels
of revenue cannot be expected to return. It is with this understanding that
I present to you a one-year budget for FY 2012. Under normal
circumstances, I would be presenting a two-year budget. However, given
the level of uncertainty created by the economic crisis, and our pending
public safety labor negotiations which will have a major bearing on the
Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012x
City's finances, developing a budget for FY 2013 is not practical, and likely
would be subject to significant change. Thus, we have decided to focus our
attention on FY 2012 only.
Although Palo Alto has fared better than many communities in California, the
recession has lowered baseline revenues available to fund General Fund
programs and services. As an example, sales tax revenues in this year (FY 2011)
will be lower than revenues produced five years ago (FY 2006). This, combined
with soaring employee benefit costs, has required the City Council to make
difficult decisions to produce a balanced budget over the past few years. The
City Council has focused its budget reduction strategies on permanent, on-
going (structural) solutions as much as possible. In FY 2011, the City Council
instituted long-term structural cost controls to address a budget gap of $7.3
million. This followed a $16.2 million budget gap the City Council balanced in
FY 2010 and an $8 million budget gap closed in FY 2009. A total of $14.3
million in structural changes have been made during the last two fiscal years.
In addition to the structural reductions mentioned above, we have reduced
staffing by eliminating the equivalent of 77 full-time General Fund positions
since FY 2008. Sixty of those full-time positions were eliminated in the past
two years. This is close to 10 percent of our General Fund workforce.
The FY 2012 General Fund Budget is $146 million, an increase of 2.7 percent
from FY 2011. The total City Budget including enterprise and other funds is
$463 million or a 3.2 percent increase. This is due primarily to increases in
pension and health care costs.
In response to Council Priorities, the Budget does include $1 million in new
funding for the Office of Emergency Services. It also includes $0.6 million for
the Development Center to fund needed staff and to underwrite undergoing
process improvements. This expenditure is offset by an increase in revenue due
to a higher volume of construction and corresponding increases in projected
permit center fees.
The Budget includes a number of departmental reductions such as
restructuring the Public Works Department for cost savings, but the Budget I
present to you is balanced by counting on achieving significant timely
concessions from our Public Safety unions, which have yet to make any
structural cost savings contributions to the City's fiscal difficulties.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Transmittal Letter
xi
If we are unsuccessful in this regard, by mid-year we will need to return to
Council with staff and departmental reductions in the Police and Fire
Departments. This presents us with a sizable challenge but I am optimistic that
we can work together to achieve these savings through concessions and other
service efficiencies.
Employee
Concessions
The City's primary function is to provide services to our community, which
requires people. The largest portion of our General Fund dollars goes to pay
the salaries and benefits of our employees. Approximately 64 percent of
General Fund expenditures are tied to personnel costs, and 56 percent of these
costs are in the public safety area. A critical component of the City's ability to
maintain quality services for the community, in the face of declining revenues
and growing personnel costs, has been working with labor groups over the last
several years to achieve wage and benefit concessions. These concessions
include:
• Creating a second tier to our retirement structure (2 percent at 60) for all
new non-public safety employees hired on or after July 17, 2010.
• Implementing a 90-10 medical cost sharing plan that began April 1, 2011 for
non-public safety employees.
• Implementing cost-of-living freezes in FY 2010 and 2011 for non-public
safety employees. Proposing cost-of-living freezes in 2012.
• Eliminating the variable management compensation plan for the
Management and Professional group starting with the compensation for FY
2009.
• Implementing a 20-year vesting period for Management and Fire employees
hired on or after January 1, 2004, SEIU employees hired on or after January
1, 2005, and Police employees hired on or after January 1, 2006 to qualify for
lifelong City-paid health coverage.
I am committed to approaching the City's wage and benefit issues with the
principle of fairness and consistency to all of our employees. It is important
that all of our bargaining groups share in concessions and contributions to the
City's immediate and long term fiscal demands. Our Fire contract expired at
the end of FY 2010, and negotiations that began one year ago are currently at an
impasse. Our Police contract will expire at the end of FY 2011, and
negotiations will take place during FY 2012, if not before. Concessions from
the Public Safety labor unions are essential to balancing the FY 2012 budget
and to reducing the budget gaps projected in the Long Range Financial
Forecast.
Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012xii
The aforementioned concessions and staffing reductions have been tough
decisions that are not taken lightly. Like the City, our employees face rising
household costs and diminished asset values. Furthermore, the impact of the
position eliminations is that our employees are stretched thin, and our ability to
take on new projects has been reduced. We have also experienced a significant
amount of staff turnover as a result of the compensation adjustments. To
address this situation, we are in the process of realigning and recalibrating our
organization to match available staff and financial resources. This includes
looking at alternate ways to provide services, including contracting out
functions, potential partnering with neighboring communities to provide
various programs, evaluating delivery of services through a regional model
versus local model such as regional dispatch, and much more. We also plan to
leverage innovative uses of information technology to make us a more effective
and efficient organization.
Long Range
Financial Forecast
In March 2011, staff prepared an update to the City's General Fund Long Range
Financial Forecast (LRFF) for a ten-year period, from 2011 to 2021. The LRFF
predicts slow growth in all revenue categories due to the slow pace of the
economic recovery. On the expense side, pension costs and medical benefit
obligations continue their rapid incline. The CalPERS retirement system was
hit hard by the stock market losses in 2008, and additional funding has been
required to improve its funded status. As a result, CalPERS rates have risen
from 2 percent to more than 10 percent of General Fund expenditures in the
last decade. We have also seen double digit growth in healthcare costs and our
retiree healthcare unfunded liability is $105 million and rising. The City's
actuary will be updating the value of the retiree medical healthcare liability as
of June 30, 2011, with results expected in the fall of 2011. The LRFF update
predicts that the General Fund will face persistent deficits for the next 10-year
period, with a 10-year cumulative deficit of $98.4 million. That figure,
however, does not include a solution to the General Fund infrastructure
backlog or any potential impacts of the State of California's budget difficulties.
I will be working with the City Council in the coming year to develop short-
term and long-term strategies to eliminate these deficits and develop a
sustainable model for funding the City's ongoing infrastructure requirements.
Infrastructure
Backlog
We continue to make strides to bolster the physical foundation of our
community. The City's ability to dedicate resources to infrastructure is due, in
part, to one-time funding sources that support specialized efforts. As an
example, Palo Alto voters approved Measure N in 2008, which will fund a
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Transmittal Letter
xiii
comprehensive investment in library facilities starting in 2011. We have
obtained American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for street
and road rehabilitation projects, among other things. In spite of this, the City
faces a significant and rising gap in infrastructure investment needs and
available funding of potentially $500 million over the next 20-year period. The
long-term health of the City requires that these needs be addressed, as they play
an important part in the economic vitality and quality of life in the community.
Given this, the City Council formed the 17-member Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC). The IBRC is tasked with identifying and
prioritizing the City's unmet and deferred infrastructure needs as well as
proposing funding mechanisms that could reduce or eliminate the mounting
infrastructure backlog. The financing measures could include public/private
partnerships, new revenue sources, and various bond structures. The final
report to Council is anticipated in December this year, just before mid-year of
the FY 2012 Budget.
Council Priorities The FY 2012 budget advances Council priorities within the constraints of
available resources. An approximate amount of resources spent toward each
priority is as follows: City Finances ($2.4 million), Emergency Preparedness
($0.6 million), Environmental Sustainability ($0.4 million), Land Use and
Transportation Planning ($1.3 million, including $0.6 million for Development
Center improvements), and Youth Well-Being ($0.2 million).
The priority of City Finances is the foundation of the City Council's Top Five
Priorities. A solid financial base enables the Council to deliver on its priorities.
The solution to creating sustainable finances will be multi-dimensional and
involve improvements in operational effectiveness and efficiency, a reset of our
labor agreements, new or enhanced revenues, and greater community
partnerships. The budget before you reflects a number of short- and long-term
actions that will address the City Finance priority and prepare the City to
provide services to future generations.
The Proposed Budget contains a number of long-lasting changes to key City
legacy costs-- pension and health care costs. More work remains to be done to
develop and execute new labor agreements with our employee groups that will
be sustainable over the long-term. Departmental budgets have been reduced by
$1 million. The overall impact on service levels resulting from these reductions
will be modest and is unlikely to be noticed by most residents. Finally, during
this budget year, we will be addressing high priority infrastructure projects,
Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012xiv
while we work hard to develop a sustainable business model for eliminating a
major backlog of infrastructure projects.
Emergency Preparedness functions throughout the City will be reorganized in
FY 2012 in order to improve emergency operations readiness, enhance
communications, and deepen community connections. In addition, during
this budget year, the City will work with community groups to plan and
conduct a community Emergency Preparedness exercise. Staff will be
presenting recommendations parallel to this Proposed Budget that, if approved
by Council, can be incorporated in the FY 2012 Adopted Budget.
Environmental Sustainability is a core value of the City. This Budget funds
initiatives to reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions footprint over the
long-term, and preserve and protect the City's urban forest. The Electric Fund
will continue to roll-out the installation of LED streetlights in the City to
produce energy savings. The City will also explore developing a more formal
collaboration with Stanford to leverage knowledge, resources and talent to
build a more sustainable community.
The Land Use and Transportation Planning priority will focus on improving
the delivery of services and increasing customer satisfaction at the City's
Development Center. The City will support Caltrain's efforts to develop a long-
term financial plan and conduct a Rail Corridor Study to provide a vision for
land use and transportation along the Caltrain rights-of-way. Review of the
Stanford Medical Center development project is moving forward with a
resolution planned for possible approval before the start of the fiscal year.
The City will continue to play a direct role in providing programs, services and
facilities to foster Youth Well-Being. Examples include the afterschool
programs at the Palo Alto Teen Center, Children's Theatre, Junior Museum and
Zoo, and the Arts Center. An exciting illustration of community collaboration
can be seen in the project to build the Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell
Park. Palo Alto will provide support to the Friends of Palo Alto Parks as they
raise funds to build Palo Alto's first playground accessible to people of all
abilities and ages during FY 2012. The City will also continue to coordinate the
Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being initiative and provide support
to the Project Safety Net Community Task Force.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Transmittal Letter
xv
Enterprise Funds
and Rate Changes
The Palo Alto Utilities continue to provide value and reliable service for our
residents and businesses. Of note is the Utilities' continuous effort to upgrade
our infrastructure, proactively repairing and replacing utility poles, electrical
substations, gas and water mains, and the plant system necessary to maintain a
reliable flow of services to customers. For example, the budget includes $3.8
million for the crossbore safety program, which will identify and repair any
potential intersecting of a gas line and sewer line.
The FY 2012 Proposed Budget includes rate changes for the Water, Wastewater
Collection and Storm Drainage funds. These rate changes will increase the
overall average residential utility bill by 3.7 percent or $12.07 per month. No
increases are planned for Electric or Gas rates.
A Water Fund rate increase is driven by increases in water commodity costs
which, in turn, are driven by expensive capital improvements to the Hetch
Hetchy delivery system from which the City receives much of its water supply.
In addition, cost of service adjustments are being made to more accurately align
revenues collected from each customer class with the cost attributable to
serving that class. The Water rate for the average residential customer will
increase by 11.4 percent or approximately $8.23 per month.
The Wastewater Collection Fund rate is also changed to more accurately align
revenues collected from each customer class with the cost attributable to
serving that class. The Wastewater Collection rate for the average residential
customer will increase by 13.3 percent, or approximately $3.26 per month.
Storm Drainage rates are adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). The Storm Drainage fee will increase by 1.5 percent to reflect the annual
CPI change.
In September 2010, the City Council approved Refuse rate increases of 6
percent for residential customers and 9 percent for commercial customers.
These increases will expire in September 2011. The FY 2012 Proposed Budget
reflects the expiration of these rate increases. Staff will return during FY 2012
with a plan (that may include additional rate increases) to address the Refuse
Fund operating gap.
Conclusion Although the City continues to operate in a difficult financial climate, we have
much to look forward to. These are demanding times requiring us to develop
sustainable expenditure plans that meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability to provide quality services and facilities to future
Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012xvi
generations. We are rising to the challenge. We have balanced our General
Fund budget, assuming compensation concession from Public Safety
employees, without significant detriment to the service levels our residents
expect. We have maintained a strong conservative fiscal posture that has
earned Palo Alto the highest possible bond rating. We are at the forefront of
repurposing our organization and tapping into the reservoir of talent in the
community. And we have a talented and dedicated workforce that is stepping
up to meet the demands and continue to support a high quality of life in Palo
Alto.
It is important to remember this balanced budget is predicated on salary and
benefit savings from public safety. High unfunded pension and health care
costs face the City in the years following this budget and our infrastructure
backlog continues to grow.
Acknowledgements
Appreciation is expressed to the entire City staff team involved in preparing the
FY 2012 Proposed Budget. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services;
David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services; Joe Saccio,
Deputy Director of Administrative Services; Tarun Narayan, Senior Financial
Analyst in Administrative Services; and Rob Braulik, Deputy Director Plans
and Operations. Special acknowledgement goes to the Budget Team and their
countless hours of analysis and creative thought. They include Christine Paras,
Acting Budget Manager, and staff: Amy Javelosa-Rio, Dale Wong, and Sherry
Nikzat. The team received contributions from Gail Wilcox, Melissa Cavallo,
Nancy Nagel and Libby Dame. Staff throughout the City, in particular
Department Budget Coordinators (see acknowledgement page for names) and
Department Directors, are recognized for their hard work in developing this
budget and for identifying cost savings and budget reduction opportunities.
Respectfully Submitted,
James Keene
City Manager
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Transmittal Letter
xvii
General Fund
Proposed Budget
Balancing
Recommendations
City of Palo Alto
General Fund Proposed Budget Balancing Recommendations
Fiscal Year 2012
Estimated
Net Savings
Proposed Strategy (in thousands)
Reduce administrative support $52
Reduce contractor expense, office supplies, and software
expense 94
Savings resulting from department restructuring 94
Eliminate contract for parking garage security 160
Reduction in Family Resource program and Art Center
staffing 99
Reduction in Lucie Stern, Art Center, and Nature Interpretive
hourly staff 18
Water conservation efforts in the Foothills turf area, Boronda
Lake grass land, and Interpretive Center lawn 25
Ongoing reduction in vehicle fleet usage 100
Contribution from Friends of the Library for portable lease 12
Reorganization of Public Works Department 339
Total Budget Balancing Recommendations $993
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
xviii City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
xx City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxi
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
iii Budget Acknowledgements
iv Budget Awards
MESSAGE
ix Transmittal Letter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1 City of Palo Alto Organization Chart
3 The Budget Process and Document
GENERAL FUND
13 General Fund Revenues
16 General Fund Expenditures
18 City Council's Top Five Priorities
23 General Fund Service Level Changes
25 General Fund Summary
28 General Fund — Revenues by Type
29 General Fund — Major Revenues
30 General Fund — Expenditures by Category
31 General Fund — Operating Expenditures
32 General Fund FTE and Staff Costs
33 Long Range Financial Forecast
34 FY 2012 Projected Operating Fund Balances
35 Total Citywide Revenues by Category
36 Total Citywide Expenditures by Category
37 Citywide Average Salary & Benefits
38 Citywide Pension Expense
39 Citywide Health Care Expenses
43 City Attorney
53 City Auditor
59 City Clerk
69 City Council
73 City Manager
85 Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012xxii
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
99 Community Services
121 Fire
135 Human Resources
145 Library
159 Planning and Community Environment
173 Police
191 Public Works
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
205 Enterprise Funds Overview
210 FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
211 Enterprise Fund Reserves
213 Enterprise Revenues by Fund
214 Enterprise Expenditures by Category
215 Average Residential Monthly Utility Bill
219 Electric Fund
241 Fiber Optics Fund
249 Gas Fund
265 Wastewater Collection Fund
275 Water Fund
289 Refuse Fund
301 Storm Drainage Fund
311 Wastewater Treatment Fund
OTHER FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds
323 Special Revenue Overview
325 FY 2012 Special Revenue by Fund
326 Consolidated Special Revenue Funds
327 Community Development Block Grant
329 Debt Service Overview
331 Debt Service Funds
Internal Service Funds
335 Internal Service Funds Overview
336 FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
337 Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
339 Vehicle Replacement Fund
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxiii
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
345 Information Technology Department
352 Printing and Mailing Fund
354 General Benefits Fund
356 Workers' Compensation Fund
357 Liability Insurance Fund
358 Retiree Health Benefit Fund
STAFFING
361 Summary of Position Changes
365 Table of Organization
MISCELLANEOUS
387 Palo Alto: The City
388 Reserve Policies
390 Demographic Statistics
391 Glossary
393 Americans with Disabilities Act
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
xxiv City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxv
INTRODUCTION
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
xxvi City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
City of Palo Alto Organization Chart
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
Assistant City Manager/Chief
Operating Officer
Pamela Antil
Administrative Services Department
Lalo Perez, Director/Chief Financial
Officer
Community Services Department
Greg Betts, Director
Human Resources Department
Sandra Blanch, Director (Interim)
Planning & Community Environment
Curtis Williams, Director
Fire Department
Dennis Burns, Chief (Interim)
Library Department
Ned Himmel, Director (Interim)
Public Works Department
Mike Sartor, Director (Interim)
Police Department
Dennis Burns, Chief
Utilities Department
Valerie Fong, Director
Palo Alto Residents
City Council
CITY ATTORNEY
Molly S. Stump
CITY MANAGER
James Keene
CITY AUDITOR
Vacant
CITY CLERK
Donna Grider
City of Palo Alto Organization Chart
Deputy City Manager
Steve Emslie
Information Technology Department
Vacant, Chief Information Officer
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
2 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 3
he budget is a spending management plan for the City's financial resources. Through the use of
these resources, services are provided to meet the needs and desires of Palo Alto's residents and
businesses. The budget is also at the heart of the political process, in which resources are
allocated based on City Council priorities. The review of the proposed budget is structured
around public hearings by the Finance Committee, which further incorporates public opinion into the
process. The budget is therefore the vehicle for responding to the community's wishes, as well as an
instrument for balancing inflows and outflows (revenues and expenditures) of funds.
CITY COUNCIL TOP FIVE PRIORITIES
At the start of the City's budget process, the City Council determines its main focus for the following one-
year period. Through an open Council dialogue, the priorities guide both budget development and
department priority-setting. The public has the opportunity to provide input into this process as well as
during the budget review by the Finance Committee. The following are the Top Five City Council priorities
for Fiscal Year 2012:
• City Finances
• Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Emergency Preparedness
• Environmental Sustainability
• Community Collaboration for Youth Health and Well Being
OPERATING BUDGET PROCESS
BUDGET PREPARATION
The City's annual budget process begins in November and concludes in June. The operating and capital
budgets are developed by the City Manager, in consultation with senior management and the Director of
Administrative Services, utilizing the following main sources of information:
• Community input
• City Council Top Five Priorities
• Findings from the City's Long Range Financial Forecast, which is updated annually and presented to
the Finance Committee prior to the budget process
• Comprehensive Plan containing the City's official policies on land use and community design,
transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services
This information is used to develop the budget request guidelines, which provide direction to City
departments as they prepare their budget requests.
OPERATING BUDGET CALENDAR
November: Operating budget preparation begins with determination of the base budget for the following
year, which excludes one-time revenue and expenses from the prior year. Input from the Long Range
Financial Forecast (LRFF) determines the broad financial picture facing City operations in the upcoming
period. Budget guidelines and instructions are finalized and distributed. Municipal Fee Schedule change
parameters are also provided.
T
The Budget Process and Document
The Budget Process and Document
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20124
December /January: Departments may reallocate staffing and non-salary resources for the upcoming year to
meet the changing demands placed on service delivery. This step results in no net change to the amount of
resources allocated to the department overall.
February: Changes to the base budget are submitted to the Budget Division for analysis and may include
requests for additional funding to meet program needs for the upcoming year. Textual elements of the budget
document, including benchmarking measures, are also finalized.
March: Recommendations on base budget requests are made by Budget Division staff to the Director of
Administrative Services, both in terms of conformance to budget guidelines as well as their individual merits.
Internal budget hearings are held to discuss the Budget Division’s analysis of department funding requests,
along with alternative funding options to meet the department's needs. Cost-benefit analysis is performed on
both base operations as well as new funding requests.
April: Final decisions are made by the City Manager on the proposed operating budget requests, along with
the general message to the City Council. The proposed budget document is compiled, edited, and formally
presented by the City Manager to the City Council. Proposed changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule are
finalized and reviewed by the Office of the City Attorney.
May/June: the City Manager presents the proposed budget to the Finance Committee in a series of public
hearings. The Finance Committee prepares its recommendation to the City Council. Final adoption occurs at a
final public hearing in June. All changes made during the public process are incorporated into the adopted
budget document which is distributed to City libraries as well as posted on the City's website.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
The Budget Process and Document
5
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, 7pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 7pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday, 7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund
CIP
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund
budget – Council Appointed Officers,
Council, Human Resources, ASD, ASD
Internal Service Funds, Library
Police, Fire
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
The Budget Process and Document
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20126
CHANGING THE BUDGET
LEVEL OF CONTROL AND CHANGES TO THE ADOPTED BUDGET
Budgetary control, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount, is
implemented at each expense item at the cost center level, the department level, the fund level, and the capital
project level. Administrative policies provide guidelines on budget transfers - the authorization necessary to
implement transfers and appropriations after the budget is adopted. Generally there are two types of budget
transfers:
Budget Adjustment: Budgetary control, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the
appropriated amount, is exercised at the fund level, the department level, and the capital project level.
Budget Amendment: This is an adjustment to the total appropriated amount within a fund or department
which was not included in the original adopted budget. These supplemental appropriations are presented to
City Council in an agenda report and require approval by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Unexpended
appropriations automatically lapse at the end of the fiscal year and are included in the ending fund balance
calculations within each fund.
Reasons for initiating a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) include:
• Recognizing unanticipated revenue, which was not projected in the budget, and appropriating
associated expenditures in the year in which the revenue is received
• Appropriating additional funds from reserves
• Transferring dollars from the operating budget to the capital budget or vice versa
• Transferring between funds, departments, or projects
• Amending the official “Table of Organization” (staffing changes) during the year
• Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule during the year
UNDERSTANDING THE DOCUMENT LAYOUT
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The budget document contains sections on the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Debt
Service Funds, and Special Revenue Funds.
Funds: Local government budgets are made up of funds that help to organize and account for restricted
resources. Each fund is considered a separate accounting entity. Enterprise Funds are set up as self-supporting
units similar to those in a business. They account for the operation and maintenance of facilities and services
that are entirely paid for by rates charged to residents or, in the case of Internal Service Funds, to City
departments. The City of Palo Alto owns and operates its own utilities, with the exception of refuse hauling and
collection, which is contracted with an outside firm. The budget document is divided into fund and
department sections, each containing the following components:
• Fund/Department Overview - identifies key goals to be achieved during period
• Program Update - reports on accomplishments in any new program/activity undertaken during the past
two years
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
The Budget Process and Document
7
• Financial Summaries - revenues and expenditures by functional area and expense category
• Council Priority Implementation - specifically cites activities related to City Council's top five priorities
• Resource Level Changes - identifies major resource changes from the base budget
• Service Level Changes - describes changes to service delivery in the upcoming period
Financial and narrative information is provided in each of these areas. This format allows the reader to review a
fund budget at different levels of detail ranging from an overview of the fund as a whole, to specific
department program funding requests.
Positions: Specific information related to the number of positions within a particular department or fund can
be found on the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) line of each financial summary. Historical information on how these
numbers have changed is detailed under the Staffing tab and within the Table of Organization. At the fund and
department levels, the number of personnel in each functional area is shown. A detailed listing of regular,
permanent positions and total cost is shown at the beginning of each department/fund, with the specific
classifications noted in the Table of Organization at the end of this document.
UNDERSTANDING THE DETAILS
FINANCIAL SUMMARIES
Reflected in this document are actual revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2010, the FY 2011 Adopted
Budget, the FY 2011 Adjusted Budget, and the FY 2012 Proposed Budget. The main focus of this discussion
along with the dollar amounts in the “Budget Change” column is to compare the FY 2010 Adjusted Budget with
the FY 2011 Adopted Budget. This describes the changes from the prior year's numbers and is the
recommended method of showing budgetary changes by the Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB).
Revenues: Total revenues are displayed for each department and fund. In each department, revenues are
shown as either internal or external depending on their source. Revenues include fees collected for cost-
recovery purposes by the department or fund for specific services to the public (external revenues), as well as
revenues received from other funds (internal revenues). An example of internal revenue includes the Electric
Fund reimbursing the Attorney's Office for legal services. The principal sources of external revenues are
described in the Resource Level narratives within each department.
Expenditures: Expenditures are displayed at the fund summary as well as the department summary level. For
example, within the Planning and Community Environment Department budget, funding dedicated to the
Building Division and other divisions is shown.
Basis of Accounting and Budgeting: All governmental fund-type annual budgets are presented on a basis
consistent with the general purpose financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. The City’s Fiscal Year 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was prepared
in accordance with the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34
and provides government-wide financial statements in addition to the fund financial statements. The
accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to fund financial statements is determined by the
measurement focus of the individual fund.
The Budget Process and Document
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20128
The City's Governmental Fund (General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, and Capital Project Fund) and Proprietary
Fund Budgets (Enterprise Funds) are developed using a modified accrual basis of accounting. While the
Governmental Fund is accounted for using the modified accrual basis, the Proprietary Fund is accounted for
using the full accrual basis of accounting. Both of these bases are generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP).
Modified accrual basis of accounting recognizes revenues when measurable and available and records
expenses when incurred, while the full accrual basis of accounting records revenues when earned and
recognizes expenses when incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place.
Fund/Department Administration: The budget document includes an administration function within each
department-level financial summary. Typical administration expense includes core staff that work on
department-wide priorities, as well as allocated costs from internal service funds.
RATES AND RESERVES
The General Fund (GF) has one main reserve - the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). City Reserve Policy has
placed a cap of 18.5 percent of GF Expenditures on the BSR, with any excess going to the Infrastructure Reserve
(IR). Financial Policy allows flexibility in determining the BSR cap amount within a range of between 15 and 20
percent of expense.
The Infrastructure Reserve (IR) is located in the General Capital Projects Fund. Annual interest of approximately
$1 million accrues to this fund. The budgeted General Fund transfer for Fiscal Year 2012 is $10.5 million for
infrastructure projects.
In the Enterprise Funds, rates are the charges to customers for services provided, such as electric and gas
services. The total revenue generated by the rates covers expenditures on an ongoing basis. Utility rate
increases or decreases are typically staggered to minimize volatility from one year to the next. When budgeted
revenues are not sufficient to cover budgeted expenditures in years between planned rate increases, or in the
case of emergencies or unforeseen changes in either revenues or expenses, reserves are used to cover the
difference. Council has adopted a policy specifying the appropriate levels of reserves in each Enterprise Fund.
Typically, the budget will reflect either increasing or decreasing the reserves to within Council-approved
ranges. A reserves summary table is located at the beginning of the Enterprise Funds section and within each
individual fund summary.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds account for revenues with restrictions on their usage. These funds include gas tax funds
from the state, in-lieu housing fees assessed for the City's Below Market Rate housing projects, and
transportation mitigation fees paid by developers. Other funds in this category include: assessments for
parking lot bond payments, parking permit revenues, and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from
the federal government. Also included are development impact fees related to libraries, parks, and community
centers.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
The Budget Process and Document
9
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Internal Service Funds provide printing and mailing, vehicle replacement and maintenance, technology, and
general benefits administration services to City departments. These services are rendered on a cost recovery
basis through user charges. The Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund manages citywide maintenance
and replacement of vehicles and equipment. The Printing and Mailing Services fund central duplicating and
printing/mailing services, while the General Benefits Fund, Workers’ Compensation Fund, and Retiree Medical
Fund account for the administration of employee benefits, the City's self-insured workers' compensation,
payroll, and retiree healthcare benefits. The General Liability Fund administers the City’s general liability
programs. The Technology Fund performs activities such as personal computer desktop, software application,
and technology infrastructure replacement and maintenance.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201210
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 11
GENERAL FUND
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
12 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 13
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Revenues
The City's “2011-2021 Long Range Financial Forecast” (LRFF) was presented to the Finance Committee (FC)
in February 2011 (FC Report ID # 1315). The LRFF, with its ten-year revenue and expense forecast, is the
foundation on which a proposed budget is built. A slow economic growth is anticipated - a stabilizing
economy and rising corporate profits are offset by high unemployment and tepid consumer spending.
Each revenue remittance is scrutinized carefully to determine trends and so that projections can be
updated. Therefore, some revenue figures have changed since the original LRFF was published.
General Fund revenues are expected to climb slowly after the Great Recession decline. The chart on page
29 depicts major historical and projected General Fund revenue streams for twenty-two years. General
Fund revenues “bottomed out” in FY 2011; weak consumer confidence, cautious business spending, and
credit restrictions could dampen revenue recovery. In FY 2012, $146.3 million total revenue is budgeted in
the General Fund, a $4.8 million (3.4 percent) increase from FY 2011 adjusted budget. The following
sections discuss the City's major revenue sources and their projected levels for FY 2012.
SALES TAX
Sales tax is projected at $20.3 million in this budget which is $0.6 million above the LRFF projection. After
three years of almost consecutive quarterly declines in performance, the City realized gains in the 2010
third and fourth quarter, respectively, of 12.8 percent and a 2.6 percent. Key local sales tax generators such
as apparel and department stores, furniture and appliance, restaurants, food markets, office equipment,
and business services show increased activity. Auto sales, however, continue to be in the doldrums.
PROPERTY TAX
Unlike other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, Palo Alto property values have remained relatively stable. Palo
Alto foreclosures in 2009 and 2010 numbered ten and eight compared to Santa Clara County totals of 5,006
and 2,279, respectively. Typically lagging the more economically sensitive revenue sources, property taxes
have reached a plateau in FY 2011. In FY 2012, the assessment roll will have a positive adjustment of 0.75
percent based on the California CPI; in FY 2011 the adjustment was negative 0.26 percent. Projected
General Fund property tax revenue for FY 2012 is $26.0 million or 2.8 percent above the adjusted FY 2011
budget and $0.2 million above the LRFF projection. City property tax forecast assumptions are in line with
those of the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Recent Cornish and Carey Commercial data on office and research and development (R & D) vacancy rates
are positive and bode well both for property and documentary transfer tax revenues. Over the period from
Calendar Year 2009 Quarter 2 through Calendar Year 2011 Quarter 3, vacancy rates have dropped from 13.6
percent to 7.7 percent for office space and from 8.3 percent to 3.7 percent for R & D.
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)
TOT is a tax levied on short-term (30 days or less) room rental. This tax source has rebounded significantly in
FY 2011 after declines over the prior two years. In FY 2012, the revenues are forecasted at $8.2 million or
10.9 percent above the FY 2011 adjusted budget and 6.5 percent above the LRFF projection. Through
February 2011, FY 2010 occupancy and room rates have averaged 72.6 percent and $152.15, respectively. In
FY 2010, they were 61.6 percent and $142.81, respectively. These trends have led staff to forecast higher
revenues in FY 2012.
UTILITY USERS TAX (UUT)
UUT revenues are projected to remain flat in FY 2012 compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget. The FY
2012 proposed budget projects a total of $10.9 million in UUT revenue, comprised of $8.0 million in Utilities
and $2.9 million in telephone taxes. Since there are no planned rate increases for electric and gas
General Fund Revenues
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201214
operations and telephone revenues are anticipated to decline, utility driven UUT revenues are expected to
remain flat in FY 2012.
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX
Documentary Transfer tax revenues are projected to be $4.3 million or 6.7 percent above the adjusted FY 2011
budget. Transaction volume and receipts have risen in FY 2011. Through April 2011, revenue results have been
running 16.2 percent above the prior year and staff is hopeful that this tax source will turn in a strong
performance for the remainder of this fiscal year.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
This revenue category is mainly comprised of external reimbursements and fee-based payments for services
provided by General Fund departments. These include, for example, Stanford University's payment for fire
protection services ($8.7 million), paramedic fees ($2.0 million), and plan checking fees ($2.0 million). As
compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget, this category is projected to increase by $0.7 million due to
increases in the Stanford fire contract ($0.4 million) and increases in plan checking fees ($0.3 million).
PERMITS AND LICENSES
Increased revenue in this category reflects a stabilizing and gradually improving economy. Strengthened by
higher confidence in the local real estate market, the proposed FY 2012 Permits and Licenses revenue is $5.8
million, a $0.7 million increase compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget. The bulk of the revenue increase is
due to fees generated at the Development Center for private development and construction activity.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has continued to maintain its loose monetary policy to boost the
economy. With interest rates at “rock bottom” levels, there is no change in the investment income of $1.3
million projected in the LRFF. This represents a decline of 1.5 percent over the FY 2011 adjusted budget.
RENTAL INCOME
Primarily comprised of rent charged to Enterprise Funds for use of City land, this revenue category is increasing
$0.1 million in FY 2012 as compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget, due to annual rental rate adjustments.
CHARGES TO OTHER FUNDS
This revenue category is the reimbursement received by the General Fund for the provision of administrative
and other services to Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. The General Fund charges these funds for legal,
human resources, finance, and general administration services. This revenue is decreasing $0.2 million in FY
2012 compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget, due to departmental expenditure reductions that have been
recommended in response to declining revenues.
OPERATING TRANSFERS-IN
The largest component of this revenue category is the $17.6 million equity transfer from the enterprise funds.
The equity transfer represents the return on the initial investment the City made when the Utility Department
was created more than 100 years ago. A recommendation to change the methodology for calculating the
equity transfer was presented to the Finance Committee on March 31, 2009 (CMR: 190:09) and was presented
again on May 26, 2009 (CMR: 260:09). The change in methodology was adopted by the City Council on June 15,
2009 as part of the budget adoption. The transfer for FY 2012 represents a $1.1 million increase from FY 2011.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Fund Revenues
15
OTHER REVENUE
This revenue category is mainly comprised of Animal Services revenue from neighboring cities; the Palo Alto
Unified School District's (PAUSD) share of maintenance for athletic fields; and other one-time revenue sources
such as grants. This revenue is decreasing $0.2 million in FY 2012 compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget
due to one-time grant revenues received in FY 2011.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201216
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund Expenditures
In FY 2012, $146.2 million total expense is budgeted in the General Fund, an increase of approximately $4.2
million, or 3 percent, compared to the FY 2011 adjusted budget.
For FY 2012, the projected budget gap was $3.07 million. In response to requests for proposed reductions,
$1 million in ongoing structural reductions were submitted by departments. To advance Council priorities,
department budgets were increased by $1 million and are offset by an additional $1.8 million in improved
revenues. An additional $1 million placeholder is included in Non-Departmental for the creation of the
Office of Emergency Services. Specific changes and impacts are detailed in the General Fund Service Level
Changes section of the Proposed Budget.
SALARY AND BENEFITS
The FY 2012 Proposed Budget includes no funding for City employee salary increases. The City's
negotiations with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) have reached an impasse and parties
are preparing for arbitration. Contracts with the Palo Alto Peace Officers Association and the Service
Employees International Union expire June 30, 2011. The Fire Chiefs Association negotiations are
underway. Negotiations with these groups will focus on the expectation that additional cost savings
measures will be agreed upon to address the underlying structural deficit driven, in large part, by
escalating employee benefit costs.
The City's budgeted costs for employee pension and health benefits will increase significantly in FY 2012.
Overall benefit costs will increase approximately $5.5 million, or 26 percent, compared to the FY 2011
adopted budget. The $5.5 million increase is principally related to a $4.2 million increase in pension costs
and a $1.3 million increase in healthcare costs. In FY 2012, for every $1,000 of salary paid, the City will pay
(on average) an additional $630 for employee benefits, the vast majority of which is in the form of pension
or healthcare benefits.
In addition to the above, the City's budgeted costs for retiree healthcare will increase in the General Fund
by $1.1 million, or 19 percent compared to the 2011 adjusted budget due to a change in methodology for
allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
The General Fund portion of the increased cost for employee benefits in FY 2012 is approximately $4.3
million. Additional information about the increased benefit costs can be found in the overview section for
General Benefits and Retiree Health.
ELIMINATED OR REDUCTED POSITIONS
The net reduction in the proposed FY 2012 budget is 4.65 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE). Additional FTEs were
added to the Administrative Services Department, 0.10 FTE, and the City Manager's Office, 0.50 FTE, to
existing positions. A total of 0.25 FTE is reallocated from the General Fund to the Enterprise Funds and
Other Funds. The proposed budget eliminates six positions totaling 4.5 FTE and reduces two positions by a
total of 0.50 FTE. The following is a list of eliminated positions or reductions of FTE:
Eliminated Positions
• Claims Investigator (City Attorney’s Office) - 0.60 FTE
• Coordinator Recreation Programs (CSD) - 0.50 FTE
• Administrative Assistant II (Planning) - 1.0 FTE
• Superintendent PW Operations (Public Works) - 0.60 FTE
• Manager Facilities Maintenance (Public Works) - 0.80 FTE
• Administrative Associate I (Public Works) - 1.0 FTE
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Fund Expenditures
17
Reduction in FTE
• Program Assistant (CSD) - 0.50 FTE
For additional detail, please refer to the Staffing section of this document.
NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES
Non-departmental appropriations include expenses that are not directly related to the operation of a particular
department, such as payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) as part of the lease and
covenant not to develop the Cubberley Community Center. The FY 2012 payment for this lease, which expires
at the end of 2014, is approximately $7 million.
Non-departmental expenditures also reflect anticipated salary savings for FY 2012 of $1 million, a decrease of
$500,000 compared to the FY 2011 adopted budget.
CONTINGENCY ACCOUNTS
Contingency accounts are budgeted appropriations that are eventually transferred to the City Council, City
Manager, City Attorney or other departments to pay for unanticipated expenses. The FY 2012 Proposed Budget
includes $625,000 in these accounts, which remains unchanged from the 2011 adopted budget.
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
General Fund money is transferred to the Capital Projects and Debt Service Funds on an annual basis. For FY
2012, $10.5 million is proposed to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. This represents a $0.7 million, or 7
percent, increase compared to the FY 2011 Adjusted Budget. This increase accounts for planned growth in the
General Fund’s contribution for General Fund infrastructure needs. The transfer to the Debt Service Fund is
proposed at $1.1 million, a $20,000 increase compared to the FY 2011 Adjusted Budget
RESERVES
The City's general reserve is referred to as the “Budget Stabilization Reserve” or BSR. By policy, the City
maintains a reserve level of 15-20 percent of the General Fund operating budget, with a targeted goal of 18.5
percent. City Council approval is required prior to setting reserves lower than 15 percent. The City Manager is
authorized, at his/ her discretion, to transfer any amount in excess of 18.5 percent to the Capital Projects
Infrastructure Reserve. The FY 2012 Proposed Budget yields a $27 million BSR balance.
LONG RANGE FINANCIAL FORECAST
The Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) plays a critical role in the development of the Proposed Budget. The
2011 - 2021 LRFF presented to the Finance Committee in February 2011 reflects the impact that the slow
economic recovery, substantial increases in employee pension and healthcare costs, and other factors have on
the City's budget.
CITYWIDE OPERATING FUND BALANCE STATEMENT
An organization-wide operating fund statement is included in the financial summaries that follow this portion
of the budget. Internal Service Fund activities (e.g. employee benefits, technology costs, vehicle replacement
costs, etc) are not listed separately since those expenses are allocated and reflected in the departmental
budgets that receive those services and/or are allocated those costs.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201218
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
City Council's Top Five Priorities
City Council's Top Five Priorities
A list of activities that further the Council's Top Five Priorities is included in departmental budgets. Provided
below is a summary of the activities, services and programs that are part of the FY 2012 Proposed Budget.
Along with these items are estimates of the budget dollars needed to deliver the service or perform the
activity. Since the budget is structured around department missions, the costs related to the delivery of
Council priority-related services are estimated. This summary is meant to depict the commitment of
resources where estimates are available.
Additional department activities for which dollar estimates are not easily obtained can be found in the
individual department sections. A summary of CIP expenses related to the Council's Top Five Priorities can
be found in the FY 2012 Proposed CIP document.
CITY FINANCES: $2,401,610
Administrative Services Department - $924,385
Execute new budget and fiscal measures to ensure the long-term financial stability of the City.
Support labor negotiations and facilitate changes to labor agreements that will be sustainable over the
long-term.
Participate in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee analysis of infrastructure funding requirements
and financing measure recommendations.
City Attorney's Office - $128,480
Provide legal advice relating to new or enhanced approaches to increasing revenues, expense reduction
programs, labor negotiations, and the execution of new labor agreements.
City Manager's Office - $100,800
Complete and execute an economic development strategic plan to enhance the City's economic base.
Continue business outreach efforts, participate in business retention efforts, and participate in local and
regional economic development efforts.
Fire Department - $19,100
Research and evaluate Fire Study recommendations regarding opportunities for regionalization and
consolidation of Fire functions with other jurisdictions to reduce cost.
Complete negotiations of new labor agreements.
Human Resources Department - $258,508
Complete labor negotiations with major bargaining groups and execute new labor agreements that will be
sustainable over the long-term.
Public Works Department - $954,626
Complete Refuse Study and execute plans to balance and stabilize the Refuse Fund.
Complete the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee analysis of long-term infrastructure needs and
financing measures and report to the City Council.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Council's Top Five Priorities
19
Other City Department Contributions:
Police Department - $15,711
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: $625,678
City Attorney's Office - $47,333
Evaluate legal issues related to emergency preparedness, provide legal advice regarding reimbursement for
State, Federal, or local disasters, and develop plans to ensure legal functions continue in the case of an
emergency.
Participate in the analysis of alternatives for a secondary electrical transmission source.
Fire Department - $110,350
Lead the effort to restructure the Office of Emergency Services, coordinating complex activities across all City
departments and with the community to ensure a unified response to emergencies.
Work with staff and community members to conduct an emergency preparedness exercise.
Implement recommendations resulting from the Foothills Fire Management Plan to reduce the risk of fire
danger and ensure the safety of the residents in the Foothills.
Establish a medical reserve corporation program, recruiting medical professionals and other volunteers
interested in supporting disaster medical response.
Human Resources - $228,445
Participate in the restructuring the Office of Emergency Services with a focus on four key readiness areas:
preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery.
Support efforts to conduct an emergency preparedness exercise.
Police - $146,700
Participate in restructuring the Office of Emergency Services with a focus on four key readiness areas:
preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. Develop methods and strategies to enhance citizen
volunteer support.
Work with community groups to plan and host a full-scale emergency preparedness exercise to enable the City
to better prepare for an actual event.
Utility Department - $89,000
Evaluate the feasibility of installing a secondary electrical transmission source in a separate geographical area
of the City to prevent power interruptions and prepare a report to the City Council on viable alternatives.
Other City Department Contributions:
Community Services Department - $3,850
City Council's Top Five Priorities
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201220
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: $405,512
City Attorney's Office - $26,920
Evaluate the legality of funding options for energy efficiency projects, draft contracts for renewable energy,
and assist with the analysis of sustainable development conditions at the Stanford Medical Center. Provide
legal advice regarding green building ordinances and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
City Manager's Office - $28,500
Establish formal collaborative relationship with Stanford regarding sustainability initiatives.
Explore methods to integrate Palo Alto Green into the City's sustainability program.
Planning and Community Environment Department - $59,762
Complete an Urban Forest Master Plan to help the City preserve and renew its urban forest.
Support efforts to install electric vehicle charging stations throughout the City.
Public Works Department - $78,205
Evaluate alternatives for handling the City's organic residuals (yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater
solids), including the evaluation of new composting digesters, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Utility Department - $208,000
Evaluate opportunities to facilitate the installation of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the City.
Other Department Contributions:
Community Service Department - $1,925
Fire Department - $2,200
LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: $1,297,828
City Attorney's Office - $56,582
Provide legal advice related to the Comprehensive Plan revision, the Stanford University Medical Center
project, and the California High-Speed Rail activities.
City Manager's Office - $222,152
Continue High Speed Rail monitoring and collaborative work with Peninsula cities, regional agencies.
Facilitate action plan to ensure short and long-term Caltrain operations viability.
Planning and Community Environment Department - $968,279
Redesign the City's Development Center business processes to improve service delivery and increase customer
satisfaction.
Complete a draft Rail Corridor Study providing a vision for land use, transportation, and design along the
Caltrain rights-of-way and facilitate actions that support the long-term financial stability of Caltrain.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Council's Top Five Priorities
21
Complete the Stanford University Medical Center rehabilitation and expansion project development
agreement.
Complete an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan including a Housing Element Update and two Area
Concept Plans. Actively participate in the preparation of a regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375)
and the accompanying Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Make sure regional efforts are in sync with the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and other citywide planning and transportation efforts.
Prepare an update to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to guide the City's priorities for bicycle and
pedestrian transportation projects and programs in the community.
Public Works Department - $21,739
Participate in the implementation of measurable improvements at the Development Center to improve
customer service.
Complete the Stanford University Medical Center rehabilitation and expansion project.
Fire Department -$18,900
Participate in the implementation of measurable improvements at the Development Center to improve
customer service.
Other Department Contributions:
Administrative Services Department - $10,176
YOUTH WELL-BEING: $230,945
Community Services Department - $33,599
Implement Project Safety Net plans for overall youth and teen well-being in Palo Alto.
Monitor fundraising efforts for the construction of the Magical Bridge playground, Palo Alto's first universally
accessible playground.
Police Department - $84,300
Support efforts to implement Project Safety Net goals and plans.
Fire Department - $110,500
Provide programs and services for youth in Palo Alto so they may thrive. Examples include the annual Bike
Safety Program at the Palo Alto Unified School District, the annual Safety Week Poster contest for elementary
school-aged students, and the annual Explorers Program for high school-aged students.
Establish a teen Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program at Gunn High School.
Conduct fire station tours and demonstrations for children of various ages.
Other Department Contributions:
City Attorney's Office - $2,546
City Council's Top Five Priorities
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201222
SUMMARY
Overall, the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget includes committed estimated resources related to Council's Top
Five Priorities as follows:
• City Finances: $2.4 million
• Emergency Preparedness: $0.6 million
• Environmental Sustainability: $0.4 million
• Land Use and Transportation Planning: $1.3 million
• Youth Well-Being: $0.2 million
• TOTAL: $4.9 million
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 23
General Fund Service Level Changes
General Fund Service Level Changes
Below is a summary of service level changes within individual departments:
City Attorney ($0.1 million ongoing reduction)
The budget reflects the reclassification 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to Claims Investigator and eliminates
0.4 FTE Claims Investigator, which nets to an overall department reduction of 0.6 FTE. The duties of the
Senior Legal Secretary will be moved to the Claims Investigator. In addition, funding for the law clerk
program is eliminated and, going forward, will be staffed with volunteers.
City Council ($30,000 ongoing increase)
The City Council budget includes $30,000 to hire a consultant to assist with Council Appointed Official
performance evaluations.
City Manager's Office ($39,000 ongoing increase)
The City Manager's Office budget includes additional funding to increase an hourly Management Specialist
position from 0.25 FTE to 1.0 FTE. This increase in FTE is needed to more effectively address the
department's workload. Reclass of 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III and
addition of 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate III will add support for key personnel and increase capacity for
responding to public requests.
Administrative Services ($21,289 ongoing reduction)
The Administrative Services Department reflects a decrease in temporary help, overtime and consultant
services due, in part, to the completion of the business registry project.
The budget also reflects the restructuring of the department as follows:
• Reclass .08 Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate .10 FTE from Enterprise Funds
• Increase 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
• Eliminate 1.0 FTE Budget Manager; add 1.0 FTE Chief Budget Officer
• Reclass 1.0 FTE Sr. Financial Analyst to Budget Officer
• Eliminate 1.0 FTE Graphic Design; add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate III
These changes will allow the department to provide a high level of oversight for the City's finances,
operations and management and increase capabilities to provide long range projections and analyses.
Community Services ($0.1 million ongoing reduction)
The Community Services Department (CSD) Budget eliminates three positions. In the Family Resources
Program, 0.5 FTE Coordinator Recreation Program is eliminated and will result in delayed updates to the
program's website and response to public inquiries. In the Art Center, two Program Assistant I positions are
reduced by a total of 0.5 FTE. Reduction of the Program Assistant I positions results in delayed customer
service and facility booking; administrative tasks will be reassigned to fellow staff. Elimination and
reduction in full-time CSD staff results in $0.1 million in ongoing reductions.
The Department is also reducing its temporary staff at Lucie Stern, the Art Center, and the Nature
Interpretive Center. Ongoing reductions of $18,000 are included in the proposed budget and result in
longer in-person lines and hold times over the phone.
General Fund Service Level Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201224
Library ($0.1 ongoing increase)
The Library Department includes $54,000 for temporary salaries due to the reopening of the Downtown
Library.
Planning and Community Environment ($0.55 million ongoing reduction)
The Planning and Community Environment Department budget reflects the elimination of 1.0 FTE Admin
Associate II which is offset by a reallocation of 0.5 FTE Admin Associate I from the City Manager's Office. While
this change will reduce administrative support in the department, it will increase support services for the
Development Center as it pursues the Blueprint Process.
Contract services are proposed to increase support of the Development Center’s Blueprint Process. Consultants
will provide support for:
• Project management
• Enhancing front counter customer services
• Plan Check Services
• Building Inspection Services
Additionally, the budget includes funding for an historic consultant for the Professorville area project.
A projected increase of $0.7 million in permit and plan check fee revenues will offset increases in expenditures.
Public Works ($0.34 million ongoing increase)
The budget reflects savings from a reorganization undertaken as a result of numerous staff vacancies as well as
the impending closure of the landfill. The efficiencies gained as a result of the reorganization (six divisions were
consolidated into three) allowed the department to eliminate 1.0 FTE Facilities Manager, 1.0 FTE Public Works
Superintendant, and 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate while maintaining existing service levels.
General Fund Summary
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 25
General Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Sales Tax 17,991 18,218 19,507 20,246 739
Property Tax 25,982 25,907 25,323 26,052 729
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 8,204 804
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,002 4,269 267
Utility Users Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 35
Other Taxes and Fines 1,634 2,330 2,137 2,330 193
Charges for Services 19,513 20,008 20,924 21,654 730
Permits and Licenses 4,799 4,593 5,101 5,778 677
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,318 (19)
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,776 13,914 137
From other agencies 333 155 222 155 (67)
Charges to Other Funds 11,017 10,622 10,678 10,505 (173)
Other Revenue 2,360 1,490 1,585 1,428 (158)
TOTAL REVENUES $122,513 $120,748 $122,816 $126,711 $3,895
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,678 19,606 928
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $144,524 $139,433 $141,493 $146,317 $4,823
General Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201226
Expenses
City Attorney 2,583 2,369 2,390 2,355 (35)
City Auditor 958 982 989 1,006 16
City Clerk 1,455 1,093 1,335 1,479 144
City Council 287 142 143 195 52
City Manager 2,282 2,178 2,407 2,265 (142)
Administrative Services 7,873 6,293 6,468 6,514 47
Community Services 20,490 20,032 20,147 20,696 549
Fire 27,733 27,007 27,813 28,946 1,134
Human Resources 2,707 2,817 2,849 2,919 70
Library 6,388 6,609 6,675 6,944 269
Planning and Community Environment 9,350 9,320 9,980 10,319 339
Police 28,841 30,579 30,941 31,868 927
Public Works 12,529 13,084 13,127 12,897 (230)
Non-Departmental 8,745 5,970 5,490 6,162 673
TOTAL EXPENSES $132,219 $128,475 $130,753 $134,566 $3,813
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,422 1,142 (280)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,478 675
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $146,857 $139,399 $141,977 $146,186 $4,208
NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $(2,333) $33 $(484)$131 $615
EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Salaries and Benefits 93,979,629 88,545,459 90,158,774 91,750,116 1,591,342
Contract Services 9,115,612 10,180,114 11,011,954 11,891,566 879,612
Supplies and Materials 2,875,040 3,241,892 3,288,578 3,153,892 (134,686)
General Expense 9,343,262 10,021,636 9,918,010 10,867,509 949,499
Rents and Leases 699,385 735,706 713,756 730,869 17,113
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,739,653 452,119 442,098 409,805 (32,293)
Allocated Charges 14,466,638 15,298,268 15,220,167 15,762,343 542,176
Operating Transfers Out 4,737,252 1,121,819 1,421,819 1,142,269 (279,550)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900,212 9,802,334 9,802,334 10,477,510 675,176
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $146,856,683 $139,399,347 $141,977,490 $146,185,879 $4,208,389
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Fund Summary
27
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Changes
FY 2011
BAO’s
Projected
06/30/11
FY 2012
Projected
Changes
Projected
06/30/12
Reserves
Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Activity:
BSR 27,396 33 (516) 26,913 131 27,044
Other Reserve Activity:
Encumbrance & Reappropriation 3,778 3,778 3,778
Inventory of Materials & Supplies 3,661 3,661 3,661
Notes Receivable, Prepaid Items, & Interfund Advances 2,920 2,920 2,920
TOTAL RESERVES $37,755 $33 $(516) $37,272 $131 $37,403
General Fund — Revenues by Type
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201228
General Fund — Revenues by Type
$146.3 Million / Proposed FY 2012
Permits &
Licenses - 3%
Return on
Investment - 1%
Rental
Income - 10%
From other
Agencies - < 1%
Charges to other
Funds - 7%
Other Revenue - 1%
Operating
Transfers-In - 13%
Charges for
Services - 14%Other Taxes
and Fines 4%
Utility Users Tax - 8%
Transient
Occupancy
Tax - 5%
Property
Tax - 20%
Sales Tax - 14%
3 Year Trend - Revenues (Millions)
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
Sa
l
e
s
T
a
x
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
Tr
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
T
a
x
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T
a
x
Uti
l
i
t
y
U
s
e
r
s
T
a
x
Ot
h
e
r
T
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
F
i
n
e
s
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
f
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
Re
t
u
r
n
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Re
n
t
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
Fr
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
s
Ot
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
-
I
n
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 Adjusted
FY 2012 Proposed
General Fund — Major Revenues
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 29
General Fund — Major Revenues
General Fund Major Revenues
Last 20 Years Plus Forecast for FY 2011 and FY 2012
25.3
26.0
14.0
13.3
14.8
17.9
20.0
18.0
19.3
20.1
18.0
19.5
20.2
9.4
10.8 10.9
6.6
7.4
8.2
5.6 5.7 5.4
3.1
3.7 4.0 4.3
12.1
7.58.1
21.5
Property Tax
8.1 7.7
9.5
13.8
16.7
26.0
25.4
25.8
22.2
Sales Tax
Utility User's Tax
5.9 6.5
5.8
11.3
7.3
5.0 5.4 5.5 5.1
11.0
5.3 5.7
6.7
3.2 3.1 3.6
Transient Occupancy Tax
9.4
5.1
6.97.1
1.41.31.2
Documentary Tax
2.0
3.1
4.4
2.9
$-
$3
$6
$9
$12
$15
$18
$21
$24
$27
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fiscal Year
Millions
General Fund — Expenditures by Category
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201230
General Fund — Expenditures by Category
Non-Departmental - 4%
Operating Transfers-
Out - 8%Administration - 11%
Community Services -
14%
Public
Works - 9%
Police - 22%
Fire - 20%
Planning & Comm
Environ - 7%
Library - 5%
3 Year Trend - Expenditures (Millions)
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Fi
r
e
Lib
r
a
r
y
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
No
n
-
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
-
O
u
t
FY 2010 Actual
FY 2011 Adjusted
FY 2012 Proposed
$146.2 Million / Proposed FY 2012
General Fund — Operating Expenditures
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 31
General Fund — Operating Expenditures
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Department
Administration
Public Works
Planning
Public Safety
CSD & Library
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Millions
General Fund FTE and Staff Costs
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201232
General Fund FTE and Staff Costs
General Fund Salaries, Benefits, and Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)
$58.9 $57.3 $53.9 $55.1 $55.6 $57.0 $60.4 $62.1 $61.1 $59.7 $60.2
$13.5 $19.0
$18.4
$24.5 $27.3
$29.9
$30.9 $29.5
$34.5$30.5
$32.9
647 653 652
574
580
623
650
669676
760752
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(
F
T
E
)
Salaries Benefits Full-Time Equivalent Permanent Employees (FTE)
`
Long Range Financial Forecast
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 33
Long Range Financial Forecast
($000)FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991 19,507 19,646 20,320 21,085 21,888 22,750 23,649 24,594 25,295 25,940 26,638
Property Taxes 25,982 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,400 7,704 7,946 8,196 8,470 8,771 9,091 9,432 9,701 9,968 10,237
Utility User Tax 11,296 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes, Fines & Penalties 2,047 2,139 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,763 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes $67,881 $69,193 $70,642 $72,866 $75,350 $78,074 $80,734 $83,760 $87,016 $90,074 $92,644 $95,173
Charges for Services 19,593 20,924 21,420 22,063 22,724 23,406 24,108 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 5,102 4,739 4,882 5,028 5,179 5,334 5,494 5,659 5,829 6,004 6,184
Return on Investment 2,624 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,776 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,943 15,392
From other agencies 333 221 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 194 200 206
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,681 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,093 12,456 12,829 13,214 13,611 14,019
Other revenues 2,360 1,584 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,844 1,899 1,956 2,015
TOTAL REVENUES $122,936 $122,818 $124,555 $126,094 $130,152 $134,505 $138,843 $143,602 $148,658 $153,551 $158,008 $162,477
Transfers from Other Funds 22,011 18,677 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $144,947 $141,495 $144,008 $146,326 $151,193 $156,387 $161,600 $167,270 $173,273 $179,150 $184,631 $190,165
Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits 93,980 90,159 94,254 98,934 103,527 107,637 112,391 117,319 122,485 127,818 133,527 139,436
Contract Services 8,899 11,012 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,289 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 9,918 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 641 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 442 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,293 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $131,988 $130,754 $134,684 $140,915 $145,505 $150,873 $156,924 $163,188 $169,730 $176,480 $183,649 $191,062
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,422 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Debt Service 1,082 1,082 1,086 1,080 929 752 749 649 763 763 763 763
Other 39 87 42 42 44 45 47 49 51 51 51 51
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $146,625 $141,978 $146,289 $152,981 $158,062 $163,934 $170,508 $177,316 $184,423 $191,761 $199,542 $207,591
Drawdown on BSR for BAO
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)$(1,767) $(483) $(2,281) $(6,655) $(6,869) $(7,547) $(8,908) $(10,046) $(11,150) $(12,611) $(14,911) $(17,426)
*Updated as of March 31, 2011
FY 2012 Projected Operating Fund Balances
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201234
FY 2012 Projected Operating Fund Balances
($000)
Projected
Ending Balance
06/30/11
Estimated
Revenues
Net Fund
Transfers
Estimated
Expenditures
Projected
Ending Balance
06/30/12
GENERAL FUND $26,913 $126,711 $7,986 $134,566 $27,044
CAPITAL FUND $4,108 $23,053 $12,675 $35,955 $3,881
DEBT SERVICE
Golf Course Debt 698 30 527 557 698
Civic Center Debt 353 0 421 421 353
Parking 2002 COPS (Taxable) Debt 238 0 232 232 238
Library Bonds 2,020 3,495 0 3,268 2,247
Subtotal $3,309 $3,525 $1,180 $4,478 $3,536
ENTERPRISE
Electric Fund 111,920 125,207 (11,959) 120,122 105,046
Fiber Optics Fund 10,406 3,659 (10) 2,061 11,994
Gas Fund 15,215 44,832 (6,204) 43,343 10,500
Wastewater Collection Fund 6,850 15,868 (98) 17,069 5,551
Water Fund 19,496 33,196 (121) 36,974 15,597
Refuse Fund (4,627) 28,199 (91) 31,668 (8,187)
Storm Drain Fund 245 5,827 (22) 5,694 356
Wastewater Treatment Fund (779) 21,081 (105) 18,813 1,384
Subtotal $158,726 $277,869 $(18,610) $275,744 $142,241
INTERNAL SERVICE
General Benefits Fund 200 * 0 *200
Retiree Health Benefit Fund 25,504 * 40 *25,544
Workers' Compensation Fund 100 * 0 *100
Liability Insurance Fund 100 * 0 *100
Printing and Mailing Fund (12) * 17 *5
Technology Fund 2,238 * (638) *1,600
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund 5,260 * 2,403 *7,663
Subtotal $33,390 $0 $1,822 $0 $35,212
SPECIAL REVENUE
Community Development Fund 5,614 816 (47) 0 6,383
Street Improvement Fund 956 1,779 (2,442) 160 133
Federal and State Revenue Funds 4,667 957 (5) 1,203 4,416
Housing In-Lieu and BMR Fund 6,629 3,896 0 6,390 4,135
Special Districts Fund 841 1,351 (1,439) 127 626
Traffic Mitigation & Parking In-Lieu Fund 5,048 595 0 0 5,643
Public Benefits Fund 0 23 0 28 (5)
Downtown Business Improvement District 34 162 0 0 196
Subtotal $23,789 $9,577 $(3,933) $7,908 $21,525
TOTAL OPERATING FUNDS $250,235 $440,735 $1,120 $458,651 $233,439
* allocation to/from other funds
Total Citywide Revenues by Category
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 35
Total Citywide Revenues by Category
The revenue table above shows total City revenues from all City funds as follows: general fund, enterprise funds,
capital fund, internal service funds, debt service, and special revenue funds.
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 234,050,142 242,485,190 244,366,190 240,484,659 (3,881,531)
Sales Taxes 17,991,204 18,218,000 19,507,000 20,246,000 739,000
Property Taxes 25,995,895 29,558,539 28,974,539 29,707,069 732,530
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858,197 7,021,000 7,400,000 8,204,000 804,000
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707,279 3,613,000 4,002,000 4,269,000 267,000
Utility Users Tax 11,295,661 11,429,000 10,824,000 10,859,000 35,000
Other Taxes and Fines 2,081,975 2,337,578 2,173,378 2,379,700 206,322
Charges for Services 20,761,665 21,413,523 22,329,223 23,671,957 1,342,734
Permits and Licenses 6,055,456 5,712,781 6,262,873 7,055,706 792,833
Return on Investments 15,464,621 11,047,050 10,738,050 10,627,200 (110,850)
Rental Income 14,653,344 13,725,264 13,845,264 13,982,711 137,447
From Other Agencies 4,319,337 2,555,223 4,009,537 3,186,863 (822,674)
Charges to Other Funds 26,391,597 26,674,678 27,080,735 26,542,571 (538,164)
Other Revenue 76,011,744 20,860,480 22,948,882 39,095,064 16,146,182
TOTAL REVENUES $465,638,117 $416,651,306 $424,461,671 $440,311,500 $15,849,829
Total Citywide Expenditures by Category
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201236
Total Citywide Expenditures by Category
The expense table above shows total City expenditures from all City funds as follows: general fund, enterprise
funds, capital fund, internal service funds, debt service, and special revenue funds. The line above labeled “To/
(From) Reserves” shows funding from reserves that is used primarily for rate stabilization in the enterprise funds
as well as for capital improvement program (CIP) funding.
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Utility Purchases and Charges 119,301,220 133,013,189 131,416,011 125,970,223 (5,445,788)
Salaries and Benefits 130,260,365 126,446,651 128,482,529 130,711,380 2,228,851
Contract Services 20,351,950 25,984,142 26,783,753 30,885,403 4,101,650
Supplies and Materials 6,205,059 7,568,518 7,453,154 6,810,045 (643,109)
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,952,311 992,420 1,097,999 937,431 (160,568)
General Expense 14,729,476 21,863,420 21,731,138 23,785,692 2,054,554
Rents and Leases 11,714,400 11,562,645 11,674,896 12,439,760 764,864
Allocated Charges 37,456,815 42,002,250 42,253,954 42,065,857 (188,097)
Debt Service 12,898,068 18,065,206 18,065,206 20,250,495 2,185,289
Capital Improvement Program 55,168,660 58,799,022 59,726,863 70,902,572 11,175,709
Net Transfers (2,321,465) (547,199) (517,622)(1,550,118) (1,032,496)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $407,716,859 $445,750,264 $448,167,881 $463,208,740 $15,040,859
To/(From) Reserves 57,921,258 (29,098,958) (23,706,210)(22,897,240) 808,970
Citywide Average Salary & Benefits
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 37
Citywide Average Salary & Benefits
AVERAGE SALARY & BENEFITS PER EMPLOYEE — BY UNIT
CATEGORY Management/
Professional
Fire Chiefs
Association IAFF PAPOA Police Mgmt
Group SEIU TOTAL
(C)
Benefits
Percentage
FTE 233.35 4.00 108.00 82.00 7.00 580.75 1,015.10
% Of City 23% 0% 11% 8% 1% 57% 100%
Salary $110,876 $138,206 $102,823 $104,304 $143,972 $70,326 $87,933,251
In-Lieu Holiday n/a n/a $5,631 $5,712 n/a $3,795 $3,280,528
Incentive Pay $0 $0 $638 $3,359 $0 $347 $546,167
Overtime (A)n/a n/a $20,973 $8,958 n/a $4,231 $5,457,088
Variable Mgmt Comp $0 $6,402 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,606 0.0%
Management Leave $4,264 $5,316 n/a n/a $5,537 n/a $1,033,872 1.1%
PERS Employer $21,917 $40,787 $34,183 $34,025 $43,371 $14,505 $20,486,556 22.3%
PERS Employee $6,022 $12,183 see note (B)$10,163 $12,957 $1,499 $3,248,415 3.5%
Medicare $1,608 $2,004 $1,573 $1,595 $2,088 $1,067 $1,317,951 1.4%
Medical $13,154 $15,362 $14,584 $13,874 $13,180 $13,095 $13,541,035 14.8%
Dental/Vision $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,789,546 2.0%
Retiree Medical Liability $10,190 $10,190 $10,190 $10,190 $10,190 $10,190 $10,186,227 11.1%
Workers' Comp $1,328 $0 $10,163 $12,661 $0 $1,399 $3,258,409 3.6%
LIFE/LTD/SUI/EAP $489 $489 $489 $489 $489 $489 $488,764 0.5%
Non-salary Benefits $4,899 $4,899 $1,899 $1,899 $4,899 $875 $2,066,046 2.3%
Average Salary & Benefits $176,715 $237,806 $205,114 $209,197 $238,651 $123,786 $154,659,460 62.6%
(A) Average employee eligible for benefit
(B) Beginning January 1, 2010, IAFF received a 9.989% salary increase and PERS employee contribution cost was transferred from the city to the employee.
(C) Benefits percentage does not include overtime salary.
Citywide Pension Expense
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201238
Citywide Pension Expense
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1
$4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2$19.5$20.8
$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.3
$24.8
$28.9
$6.9
$28.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Citywide Health Care Expenses
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 39
Citywide Health Care Expenses
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Active Employees Retirees Retiree Medical Liability
Growth based on CPI
Citywide Health Care Expenses
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201240
City Attorney’s Office
42 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0-CITY ATTORNEY
Molly S. Stump
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds: 10.0 Full-time
City Attorney’s Office
Organizational Chart
2.0-Senior Asst City Attorney
1.0-Asst City Attorney
2.0-Senior Deputy City Attorney
1.0-Legal Administrator
1.0-Secretary to City Attorney
1.0-Senior Legal Secretary
1.0-Claims Investigator
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 43
City Attorney
City Attorney
To serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the City Attorney's Office will strive to maintain the high level of customer service it has
achieved through the reorganization that has occurred over the past six years. The two primary goals of the
office are (1) to provide quality legal advice in a timely and cost-effective fashion, and (2) to assist in solving
the challenging problems facing the City by providing a range of legal options whenever possible. We will
continue focusing on these goals in 2012, with specific emphasis on keeping Council Members informed of
City legal requirements and developing a variety of approaches that are effective both legally and
practically to help staff and the Council meet important City objectives and policy directions.
On an ongoing basis, the Office will strive to keep the City Council informed of significant legal occurrences
and provide updates on legal developments and new laws that affect the City. To improve City Attorney
staff's skill in providing effective legal advice and options, the Office will continue to emphasize cross
training and encourage continuing education.
In furtherance of the Council's specific priorities for FY 2012, the City Attorney's Office plans to provide
support in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the following:
Environmental Sustainability: The Office will provide legal guidance on the Regional Treatment Plant, Long
Range Facilities Plan and Energy/Compost Feasibility Study. The Office will provide legal analysis for
reporting greenhouse gas emissions for the City and Utility Department projects and provide contract
negotiation and CEQA analysis for the City's Recycled Water Project. The Office will draft contracts for
renewable energy and draft appropriate documentation for Utilities Department's Energy Efficiency
programs. We will evaluate the legality of funding options for energy efficiency retrofit projects and assist
with the analysis of sustainable development conditions at the Stanford Medical Center.
Land Use & Transportation: The City Attorney's Office will continue to provide legal advice regarding the
California High-Speed Rail Authority and other rail and transit issues. The Office will assist staff, the Planning
& Transportation Commission, and the City Council on on-going issues related to the Comprehensive Plan
revision. The Office will work on the Business Plan for the Palo Alto Airport and issues related to a potential
early termination of the lease with the County. We will continue to provide advice to the City Council and
staff on legal issues related to the Stanford University Medical Center.
Emergency Preparedness: The Office will maintain its ongoing support to staff efforts in this arena by
continuing participation in Emergency Preparedness Steering Committee and Working Group meetings,
and providing legal advice supporting projects of those groups and any recommendations for changes or
restructuring in this area. We will also focus on ensuring that the legal functions continue in case of an
emergency and that a high level of legal advice is available during an emergency to ensure ultimate
reimbursement for State, Federal or Local disasters.
City Finances: The Office will provide legal advice relating to new or enhanced approaches to increasing
revenues. We will continue to provide extensive legal advice regarding labor negotiations. The Office will
also analyze any new expense reduction programs to determine legality and the risk of potential offsetting
liabilities that reductions may trigger. The City Attorney's Office will continue to focus on reducing its share
of department expenditures and will formulate approaches for full cost recovery for legal services provided
for the benefit of third parties.
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201244
Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Wellbeing: The City Attorney's Office will provide any assistance
required to support this priority, including work with the District Attorney to develop police policies for Police
Department interaction with juvenile victims and suspects. The Office will draft contracts for the Art Center
Construction project. We will also work with Comcast to ensure the continued viability of the I-Net for the
benefit of our Palo Alto Unified School District partners, and continue to review and negotiate contracts with
numerous non-profits to provide a high level of service to our youth.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In FY 2012, the City Attorney’s Office will implement the City Council’s Top 5 Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• Assist staff liaisons to Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
• Ensure City's fee structure is compliant with Proposition 26 and Council policy for cost recovery
• Provide legal advice on Utilities rates, reserves, cost allocations, rents and equity transfers
• Assist with development of Infrastructure finance methods and new revenue sources
• Provide legal advice on Refuse Cost of Service Study
• Provide legal advice on labor and employment issues associated with City budget and finance
Land Use & Transportation
• Provide legal advice and guidance on issues related to High Speed Rail including those involving the
Peninsula Cities Consortium and CEQA
• Advise staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council on legal issues related to the
update of the Comprehensive Plan
• Assist with development of a Business Plan for the Palo Alto Airport in anticipation of early termination of
current ground lease with County of Santa Clara
• Provide legal advice to City Council and staff on Stanford University Medical Center project
Environmental Sustainability
• Provide legal advice on reporting greenhouse gas emissions for City and Utilities Dept. projects
• Draft and review contracts for the purchase of renewable energy
• Draft and review contracts, resolutions and financing documents for Utilities Department energy
efficiency programs
• Provide legal advice, including CEQA analysis and contract negotiation, for the City's Recycled Water
Project
• Provide legal advice regarding the City's Master Water Supply contract with SFPUC through BAWSCA, and
potential sale of a portion of the City's water supply guarantee
• Provide legal advice on early closure of the landfill and restoration to parkland
• Provide legal advice related to green building ordinance and implementation of new California Green
Building code
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Attorney
45
Emergency Preparedness
• Assist in workplace violence prevention training
• Provide legal advice, review and support for emergency preparedness teams and related disaster/
emergency preparedness projects
Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Wellbeing
• Support Project Safety Net
• Work with the District Attorney to develop policies for Police Department interaction with juvenile crime
victims and suspects
• Assist with negotiation of management services agreement with Comcast for I-Net benefits on behalf of
Palo Alto Unified School District
• Draft lease for childcare facilities
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 167,726 209,110 209,375 220,181 10,806
Consultation and Advisory 1,864,790 1,554,614 1,657,575 1,544,338 (113,237)
Litigation and Dispute Resolution 431,446 476,897 399,106 463,606 64,500
Official and Administration Duties 119,017 128,075 124,257 127,230 2,973
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,582,979 $2,368,696 $2,390,313 $2,355,355 $(34,958)
TOTAL REVENUES $1,214,906 $1,389,877 $1,389,877 $996,358 $(393,519)
INTERNAL REVENUES 1,120,377 1,318,877 1,318,877 960,358 (358,519)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 94,529 71,000 71,000 36,000 (35,000)
Annual Number of Assignments
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
FY05-06
FY06-07
FY07-08
FY08-09
FY09-10
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201246
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,992,689 1,847,343 1,845,421 1,838,611
Contract Services 469,488 364,759 389,259 340,301
Supplies and Materials 27,347 26,500 26,500 26,500
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,232 1,000 1,000 1,000
General Expense 14,290 28,680 28,680 42,642
Rents and Leases 2,172 2,000 2,000 2,000
Allocated Charges 74,761 98,414 97,453 104,301
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,582,979 $2,368,696 $2,390,313 $2,355,355
TOTAL REVENUES $1,214,906 $1,389,877 $1,389,877 $996,358
Total Full Time Positions 10.60 9.60 9.60 9.00
Total Temporary Positions 0.95 0.54 0.54 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of work requests processed (SEA)3,393 2,970 3,070
2. Number of claims opened and handled (SEA)144 150 150
3. Number of code enforcement matters referred to City Attorney 577
Efficiency:
1. Ratio of work requests per attorney 565 496 512
2. Percent of claims investigations commenced within 7 days of receipt of
claim by department 96% 96%96%
3. Percent of requests for code enforcement legal support responded to
within 10 working days 100% 100%100%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of work requests completed within established time frames - time
frame varies based on type of work request 97% 97%97%
2. Percent of claims resolved within 9 months 96% 97%97%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Decrease miscellaneous revenue (35,000)(35,000)
Decrease allocated revenue - internal (358,519)(358,519)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(393,519) $0 $(393,519)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Attorney
47
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
Eliminating the 0.6 FTE Claims Investigator position and reclassifying a 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to a 1.0
FTE Claims Investigator will result in a transfer of some administrative responsibilities to the Claims Investigator
position and will provide flexibility for increased claims handling support. This position reclass may at times
result in a delay in administrative support to departments.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to 1.0 FTE Claims Investigator 7,149 7,149
Eliminate Temp Law Clerk program (28,160)(28,160)
Eliminate 0.6 FTE Claims Investigator (74,644)(74,644)
Anticipated staffing changes 27,784 27,784
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 59,143 59,143
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(8,728) $0 $(8,728)
Adjustments (Note 1)1,918 1,918
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(8,728) $1,918 $(6,810)
Non-Salary
Decrease outside counsel support in litigation and legal document prepara-
tion (10,000)(10,000)
Decrease Instruction and Training (496)(496)
Increase Allocated Charges 5,888 5,888
Total Non-Salary Changes $(4,608) $0 $(4,608)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(13,336) $1,918 $(11,418)
Adjustments (Note 1)(23,540)(23,540)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(13,336) $(21,622)$(34,958)
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201248
CONSULTATION AND ADVISORY
To provide legal advice to the City Council, boards, commissions, and City officers and employees acting in their official capacities.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,606,742 1,446,448 1,439,909 1,436,172
Contract Services 220,953 64,666 174,166 61,888
Supplies and Materials 27,347 26,500 26,500 26,500
General Expense 6,589 15,000 15,000 17,778
Rents and Leases 2,172 2,000 2,000 2,000
Allocated Charges 987 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,864,790 $1,554,614 $1,657,575 $1,544,338
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 8.31 7.33 7.33 6.88
Total Temporary Positions 0.95 0.54 0.54 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Attorney
49
LITIGATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
To provide civil and administrative representation on pending litigation, disputes and claims for the City, City Council, boards,
commissions, and City officers and employees acting in their official capacities.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 192,887 193,904 196,113 185,613
Contract Services 238,559 282,313 202,313 277,313
General Expense 0 680 680 680
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $431,446 $476,897 $399,106 $463,606
TOTAL REVENUES $47,119 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.11
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201250
OFFICIAL AND ADMINISTRATION DUTIES
To fulfill the independent official and administrative duties of the Office of the City Attorney on behalf of the City.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 103,381 100,095 101,277 104,746
Contract Services 9,248 16,680 11,680 0
General Expense 6,328 11,300 11,300 22,484
Allocated Charges 60 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $119,017 $128,075 $124,257 $127,230
TOTAL REVENUES $48,660 $71,000 $71,000 $36,000
Total Full Time Positions 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.49
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 51
City Auditor’s Office
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201252
CITY AUDITOR
Vacant
3.0-Senior Performance Auditor
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals:5.00 Full-time
0.32 Hourly
City Auditor’s Office
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 53
City Auditor
City Auditor
To promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City Government.
OVERVIEW
The City Auditor's Office conducts performance audits and reviews of City departments, programs, and
services. Performance audits provide the City Council, City management, and the public with independent
and objective information regarding the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of City programs and
activities. The Office coordinates the annual citizen survey and issues the annual City of Palo Alto Service
Efforts and Accomplishments report summarizing costs, workload, and performance results for City
services over the last five years.
Each fiscal year, the Auditor's Office presents an annual audit work plan for City Council approval. The Office
will continue to report quarterly to the City Council on the status of audit projects and annually on the
status of open audit recommendations.
The Office contracts with an independent certified public accountant for the City's annual external financial
audit. The Office also conducts and coordinates revenue monitoring in areas such as sales and use tax,
property tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT) and utility user's tax (UUT). In FY 2011, per the
recommendation of the Finance Committee, 1.0 FTE was approved to add a Senior Performance Auditor.
This position is funded by the Enterprise Funds to provide continuous and on-going audits of the
Enterprise Fund activities
.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Audit Services 964,543 981,951 989,448 1,005,564 16,116
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $964,543 $981,951 $989,448 $1,005,564 $16,116
TOTAL REVENUES $751,932 $950,416 $950,416 $746,444 $(203,972)
INTERNAL REVENUES 628,564 800,416 800,416 596,444 (203,972)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 123,368 150,000 150,000 150,000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011 Adj
Revenue Audit Recoveries - ($000)
Sales Tax Recoveries
Other Revenue Recoveries (including TOT, UUT, & Alternate Fuel)
City Auditor
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201254
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 708,016 691,225 674,144 728,449
Contract Services 212,522 239,256 264,256 218,500
Supplies and Materials 5,544 7,850 7,850 5,850
General Expense 932 1,150 1,150 8,150
Allocated Charges 31,312 42,470 42,048 44,615
Operating Transfers Out 6,217 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $964,543 $981,951 $989,448 $1,005,564
TOTAL REVENUES $751,932 $950,416 $950,416 $746,444
Total Full Time Positions 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Total Temporary Positions 0.32 0.78 0.78 0.78
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of audit reports 17 17 16
2. Revenue audit recoveries (SEA)217,681 150,000 150,000
3. Number of audit recommendations (SEA)28 25 25
Efficiency:
1. Ratio of audit reports per auditor 5.0 4.0 4.0
2. Percent of workplan completed 67% 60%60%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of revenue audit cost recovered 323% 200%200%
2. Percent of open audit recommendations implemented 45% 60%60%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Decrease allocated revenue-internal (168,972)(168,972)
Decrease operating transfer for utility audit reimbursement (35,000)(35,000)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(203,972) $0 $(203,972)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Auditor
55
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Personnel Benefit Cost Increase (Note 2) 37,224 37,224
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $37,224 $0 $37,224
Adjustments (Note 1)17,081 17,081
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $37,224 $17,081 $54,305
Non-Salary
Decrease audit contract expenses (24,256)(24,256)
Decrease office supplies (2,000)(2,000)
Increase citizen survey costs 3,500 3,500
Increase two person peer review 5,000 5,000
Increase allocated costs 2,144 2,144
Increase instruction and training 2,000 2,000
Total Non-Salary Changes $(13,612) $0 $(13,612)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $23,612 $17,081 $40,693
Adjustments (Note 1)(24,577)(24,577)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $23,612 $(7,496)$16,116
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201256
City Clerk’s Office
58 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0-CITY CLERK
Donna Grider
1.0-Admin Associate III
1.0-Assistant City Clerk
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds:6.75 Full-time
0.48 Hourly
City Clerk’s Office
Organizational Chart
1.0-Deputy City Clerk 0.75-Parking Examiner
2.0-Admin Associate II
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 59
City Clerk
City Clerk
To help administer the laws and services that directly affect the daily lives of our citizens by administering elections, records
management, and is responsible for the legislative process of all City Council meetings. The City Clerk’s Office plays a vital role
in our democracy.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the City Clerk's Office will continue to meet the needs of the public, the City Council, and staff in
the following areas: City Council and Standing Committee support services, agenda packet process, Board
and Commission recruitment, City Council events, City Council minutes, elections, conflict of interest,
legislative records management, and oversight of the Administrative Hearings. The City Clerk's Office
maintains information available on the City's website regarding the Clerk's Office and the City Council.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
The City Clerk’s Office is not directly involved in the City Council’s Top 5 Priorities. In an administrative
capacity, the Clerk’s Office will work closely with City Staff to ensure the agendas, minutes, packets, and
public hearing notices reflect those priorities.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 112,193 157,886 157,786 164,196 6,410
Public Information 99,359 95,950 97,099 101,332 4,233
Council Support Services 525,139 509,591 541,341 548,959 7,618
Election/Conflict of Interest 486,317 108,062 315,034 433,250 118,216
Legislative Records Management 88,085 92,305 93,291 96,824 3,533
Administrative Citations 143,580 129,375 130,562 134,585 4,023
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,454,673 $1,093,169 $1,335,113 $1,479,146 $144,033
TOTAL REVENUES $539,028 $427,286 $427,286 $522,221 $94,935
INTERNAL REVENUES 537,206 422,336 422,336 517,271 94,935
EXTERNAL REVENUES 1,822 4,950 4,950 4,950 0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Weeks to
Complete
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
City Council Minutes Completion
Actual
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201260
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 907,257 879,996 889,888 924,352
Contract Services 64,088 67,571 132,571 83,320
Supplies and Materials 10,318 6,535 6,535 6,535
General Expense 405,644 43,439 211,219 365,689
Allocated Charges 67,366 95,628 94,900 99,250
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,454,673 $1,093,169 $1,335,113 $1,479,146
TOTAL REVENUES $539,028 $427,286 $427,286 $522,221
Total Full Time Positions 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75
Total Temporary Positions 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of formal public records requests 120 230 240
2. Number of City Council minutes finalized (SEA)70 110 110
Efficiency:
1. Number of City Council agendas posted with City Manager Reports to the
website five days prior to council meeting 72 110 110
2. Average time to address formal public records requests 10 days 5 days 5 days
3. Average time to post City Council agenda 4 days 5 days 5 days
4. Average time to finalize City Council minutes (SEA)4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of City Council agendas posted 100% 100%100%
2. Percent of formal public records requests addressed within 10 days 99% 99%99%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase allocated revenues-internal 94,935 94,935
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $94,935 $0 $94,935
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
61
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The City Clerk’s Budget for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 includes the following resources directed toward
implementing the programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
GOVERNANCE
The City Clerk's Office provides the following information to the public on the City's website: City Clerk Reports,
City Council agendas and minutes, Board and Commission information, the Municipal Code, the City Roster, the
State of the City Address, and the City’s meeting schedules.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 44,359 44,359
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $44,359 $0 $44,359
Adjustments (Note 1)(9,895)(9,895)
NET SALARY AND BENEFIT CHANGES $44,359 $(9,895)$34,464
Non-Salary
Decrease contracting for minutes transcription (10,000)(10,000)
Decrease recruitment ad costs (7,000)(7,000)
Increase election expense 320,000 320,000
Increase agenda publication 35,000 35,000
Increase allocated charges (indirects and secondaries) 3,621 3,621
Total Non-Salary $341,621 $0 $341,621
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $385,980 $$385,980
Adjustments (Note 1)(232,052)(232,052)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $385,980 $(241,947)$144,033
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201262
PUBLIC INFORMATION
To foster awareness and civic involvement in Palo Alto by bringing the community and government closer in partnership.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 99,359 95,950 97,099 101,332
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $99,359 $95,950 $97,099 $101,332
TOTAL REVENUES $178 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
63
COUNCIL SUPPORT SERVICES
To support the administrative needs of the Council: to ensure timely delivery of Council meeting materials by staff delivery, linking
the agendas and documents to the City Website, pushing out the Agenda packet through Drop Box for IPADS and computers.
Additionally this includes preparation of minutes, and to administer the Boards and Commissions’ recruitment outreach.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 414,541 412,980 417,730 434,349
Contract Services 46,724 54,280 81,280 72,279
General Expense 41,548 40,331 40,331 40,331
Allocated Charges 22,326 2,000 2,000 2,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $525,139 $509,591 $541,341 $548,959
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201264
ELECTION/CONFLICT OF INTEREST
To administer municipal and special elections and the conflict of interest code ensuring impartiality in the processes.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 107,206 103,464 104,656 108,652
Contract Services 15,245 2,000 40,000 2,000
General Expense 363,866 2,598 170,378 322,598
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $486,317 $108,062 $315,034 $433,250
TOTAL REVENUES $373 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
65
LEGISLATIVE RECORDS MANAGEMENT
To manage City and legislative records as required by State Law, City Charter, or City Ordinance in accordance with approved
retention and destruction schedule.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 86,523 83,695 84,681 88,214
Contract Services 1,562 8,610 8,610 8,610
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $88,085 $92,305 $93,291 $96,824
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201266
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
To provide a community venue for the unbiased adjudication of Municipal Code violations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 143,233 128,775 129,962 133,985
Supplies and Materials 347 600 600 600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $143,580 $129,375 $130,562 $134,585
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Total Full Time Positions 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Total Temporary Positions 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 67
City Council
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
68 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 69
City Council
City Council
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the City Council will continue to address the needs of the community through various public
meetings and activities. Much of the focus will be on the City Council’s Top 5 Priorities which are:
• City Finances
• Land Use and Transportation
• Emergency Preparedness
• Environmental Sustainability
• Community Collaboration for Youth Health and Well Being
The 2012 City Council Budget is primarily comprised of City Council salaries, benefits, and general expense.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
City Council Operations 287,390 141,783 142,947 194,901 51,954
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $287,390 $141,783 $142,947 $194,901 $51,954
TOTAL REVENUES $100,653 $154,638 $154,638 $49,319 $(105,319)
INTERNAL REVENUES 100,653 154,638 154,638 49,319 (105,319)
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 193,155 71,145 72,309 94,263
Contract Services 63,583 37,000 37,000 67,000
Supplies and Materials 2,051 2,930 2,930 2,930
General Expense 27,915 30,455 30,455 30,455
Allocated Charges 686 253 253 253
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $287,390 $141,783 $142,947 $194,901
TOTAL REVENUES $100,653 $154,638 $154,638 $49,319
Total Full Time Positions 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Decrease allocated revenues-internal (105,319)(105,319)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(105,319) $0 $(105,319)
City Council
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201270
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Increase benefit allocation (Note 2) 23,146 23,146
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $23,118 $0 $23,118
Adjustments (Note 1)(1,164)(1164)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $23,118 $(1,164)$21,954
Non-Salary
Increase contract services 30,000 30,000
Total Non-Salary Changes $30,000 $0 $30,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $53,118 $0 $51,954
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $53,118 $(1,164)$51,954
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
City Manager’s Office
72 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0-CITY MANAGER
James Keene
1.0-ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER
1.0-Administrative Assistant
0.5-Administrative Associate I
1.0-Communications Manager
1.0-Assistant to the City Manager (Sustainability)
(0.5 FTE allocation - 0.05 to Planning and Community
Environment, 0.10 to Public Works, and 0.35 to Utilities)
1.0-Assistant to the City Manager
1.0-Management Analyst
(0.5 FTE allocation to Administrative Services Department -
Information Technology)
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds: 10.50 Full-time (9.0 FTE General Fund only)
1.00 Hourly
1.0-Executive Asst to the City Manager
1.0-Administrative Associate III
1.0-DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
(0.5 FTE allocation to Planning and Community
Environment)
City Manager’s Office
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 73
City Manager
City Manager
To lead the City in providing exemplary service and creating partnerships with citizens in an ever changing environment, in
response to City Council priorities.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the City Manager's Office will oversee efforts to implement the City Council's Top 5 Priorities:
City Finances, Land Use and Transportation Planning, Environmental Sustainability, Emergency
Preparedness, and Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being.
City Finances: City Finance strategies form the foundation for many of the City Council identified priorities.
A stable financial picture ensures the City's ability to deliver on all five City Council Priorities. Sound City
Finances are integral to Palo Alto's quality of life.
A key principle of the City's Finance objectives is to provide for the City's finances in the near and long-
term. For example, while in the normal course of business the City negotiates labor agreements on a
periodic basis, the City plans to make meaningful long-lasting changes to key City legacy costs (e.g.,
pension and health care). In addition, the City is working toward developing a sustainable business model
for funding ongoing infrastructure needs while also eliminating a major backlog of projects in the City.
These efforts will take time, and yet this investment is well worth the effort. This work will result in
improving the overall high quality of life Palo Alto citizens have come to rely upon and expect from their
City government.
Land Use and Transportation Planning: Land use and planning strategies are closely aligned with other
Council priorities. Land use and transportation are key indicators of quality of life in Palo Alto. The
overarching principle of the City's Land Use and Transportation objectives is to provide for “sustainable”
development and services: growth, rehabilitation and services that are sustainable in economic and fiscal
terms, as well as in environmental respects. The City desires to develop in ways that promote efficient
delivery of services, assure high quality development and design, protect and broaden the City's tax and
revenue base, preserve and enhance key environmental attributes, minimize energy and water use, and
promote transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.
Environmental Sustainability: Environmental Sustainability is a core value and ongoing priority for the City.
The City has been a leader in this area and continues to make strides to be a leader on the Peninsula, in the
Bay Area metropolitan region and in North America. The City is a Certified Green Business, has adopted a
Climate Protection Plan (CPP), a Sustainability Policy, has many sustainability programs including the
award-winning Palo Alto Green Program and continues to make strides in reducing Greenhouse Gas
emissions. One of the most recent examples was the implementation of a pilot program which installed
LED streetlights in the City.
Emergency Preparedness: The City of Palo Alto, like any community in the Bay Area, is susceptible to a
variety of natural hazards including earthquakes, floods, and wild land fires as well as man-made disasters
such as plane crashes, terrorism and other catastrophes. The City is committed to protecting life, property
and the environment through a number of activities including preplanning, training, rapid emergency
response and public safety education for the benefit of the community.
Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being: The City of Palo Alto plays two important roles with regard
to Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being. First, the City plays a role of convener and coordinator,
bringing the community together in order to effectively harness the tremendous community talent,
expertise and goodwill that surround youth and teens. A meaningful example of the City's role as convener
and coordinator is seen in the Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force. PSN is focused on
City Manager
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201274
developing and implementing a comprehensive community-based mental health plan for overall youth and
teen well-being in Palo Alto. A focus in 2012 is to support PSN and the specific goals defined in the PSN Plan
(www.PSNPaloAlto.org), which include gatekeeper training, Developmental Assets initiative, peer-to-peer
engagement, teen education on drug and alcohol abuse, Track Watch, youth forum, and celebrating youth-
friendly businesses.
Secondly, the City plays a direct role in providing programs, services and facilities for youth and teens so they
may thrive. This is done in collaboration with the City Libraries and with support of Friends groups and
Foundations. Examples include the variety of afterschool programs at the Palo Alto Teen Center, Children's
Theatre, Junior Museum and Zoo, Art Center and Rinconada Pool. The City's capacity to provide programs,
services and facilities for youth well being is dependent on community collaboration through the substantial
support of Friends groups and Foundations. Supporting youth and teen programs and services, along with the
respective Friends groups and Foundations, will be a priority for 2012. An exciting example of community
collaboration may be seen in Mitchell Park, which will be Palo Alto's first playground accessible to people of all
abilities and ages.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In FY 2012, the City Manager's Office will support and oversee implementation of the City Council's Top 5
Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• Develop and execute new human resource contracts that help the City manage its labor costs at a
sustainable level over the long-term
• Execute an economic development program that supports and creates new municipal revenue streams to
support vital City services and positions the City for the 21st century innovation economy
• Outline a comprehensive initiative to fund ongoing infrastructure maintenance and fund the large
existing backlog of projects. A quality infrastructure base is vital to community quality of life and to the
City's ability to attract and sustain a robust business base to support City services.
• Explore available potential revenues along with expenditure reductions to enable a long-term
sustainable fiscal ecosystem that maintains and enhances City service delivery and community quality of
life. The solution to the City's finances must be multi-dimensional and incorporate new or enhanced
revenues, reset of our long-term labor costs, and review of the methods by which we deliver services.
Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Complete strategies and plans at the Development Center to improve accountability and customer
service
• Complete draft Rail Corridor Study, outlining measures to provide for community land use, transportation
and corridor urban design
• Complete Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) facilities and replacement project
• Substantially complete update of City Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Housing Element Update and 2
Area Concept Plans
• Continue monitoring of High Speed Rail (HSR) activities and collaborative work with Peninsula cities and
regional agencies, and work on a short and long-term action plan to sustain Caltrain
• Actively participate in preparation of regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375), Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
• Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Master Plan update
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Manager
75
Environmental Sustainability
• Continue to look at utility plant operations for methods and strategies to increase the ability to reduce the
City's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). This year a major focus will be to look at the financial practicality
of new compositing digesters or their alternatives to reduce GHG's.
• Explore the possibility of installing electric vehicle charging stations at various locations in the City to
facilitate and encourage use of electric vehicles and other innovative green technologies. Fleet operations
and gas vehicles are a major contributor to GHG emissions.
• Explore developing a more formal collaborative relationship with Stanford University, utilizing synergies
between both entities to leverage their combined sustainability efforts. Stanford has a robust
Sustainability program and is a leader in research and development of green technologies and practices.
• Continue to provide and improve sustainability programs and plans for residents and businesses within
the City of Palo Alto. This initiative will also include a focused effort to leverage the City’s and community’s
combined knowledge, resources, and talent to build a more sustainable community.
• Prepare an Urban Forest Master Plan. Palo Alto is a city with a considerable existing urban forest canopy.
This canopy provides rich environmental and quality of life benefits to the community. A master plan will
guide the City in managing and enhancing this significant asset and help the City meet its sustainability
goals.
Emergency Preparedness
• Conduct one major community emergency preparedness exercise. Staff will work with community
groups to plan and host a full-scale exercise which will include multiple neighborhood groups and City
departments. This exercise will be consistent with accepted national exercise guidelines.
• Complete a feasibility analysis and report investigating alternatives for installing a secondary electrical
transmission source to the City. The new transmission source would be established in a separate
geographical area to provide backup in the case of a power outage.
• Implement recommendations of Foothills fire management plan to address treatment and mitigation
measures to ensure the viability of evacuation routes and protect life and property.
• Implement Office of Emergency Services (OES) restructuring founded on the consultant’s report and
focus on four key readiness areas: preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery.
• Improve emergency operations readiness per the City emergency operations plan. The City will work to
better coordinate all facilities and personnel in the organization and their ability to respond in a
coordinated and cohesive fashion.
Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being
• Coordinate the Project Safety Net (PSN) Community Task Force and guide the implementation of the PSN
Plan
• With Palo Alto Unified School District, create an effective and sustainable structure for the Project Safety
Net Community Task Force
• Incorporate the Developmental Assets into the planning, implementation and evaluation of City
programs and services for youth and teens
• Engage youth and teens in community decision making
• Celebrate and recognize youth and teens along with community members who make an outstanding
contribution to supporting youth
• Support the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks’ goal of building Palo Alto's first universally accessible
playground
City Manager
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201276
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Admin and City Management 1,918,498 1,810,342 2,036,235 1,904,774 (131,461)
Public Communication 170,088 202,521 204,469 191,107 (13,362)
Sustainability 195,618 167,077 167,867 170,955 3,088
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,284,204 $2,179,940 $2,408,571 $2,266,836 $(141,735)
TOTAL REVENUES $492,517 $406,532 $406,532 $522,551 $116,019
INTERNAL REVENUES 484,493 406,532 406,532 522,551 116,019
EXTERNAL REVENUES 8,024 0 0 00
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,733,673 1,785,665 1,957,670 1,878,055
Contract Services 389,652 231,685 280,685 221,485
Supplies and Materials 14,314 11,613 17,361 13,271
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 300 300 0
General Expense 58,772 46,081 48,833 44,081
Rents and Leases 64 500 500 150
Allocated Charges 85,690 102,057 101,183 107,755
Operating Transfers Out 2,039 2,039 2,039 2,039
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,284,204 $2,179,940 $2,408,571 $2,266,836
TOTAL REVENUES $492,517 $406,532 $406,532 $522,551
Total Full Time Positions 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Total Temporary Positions 1.03 0.94 0.94 1.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of City Manager reports (CMRs) issued (SEA)372 372 372
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating public information services as good or excellent (SEA)76% 76%76%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Manager
77
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
Reclassification of 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III will add support for key
personnel and capacity for addressing and responding to public requests.
0.5 FTE Administrative Associate III and 0.75 FTE Management Specialist support are added to address
workload requirements.
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase allocated revenue - internal 116,019 0 116,019
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $116,019 $0 $116,019
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Add 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate III 51,193 51,193
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Planning and Community
Environment (43,958)(43,958)
Reclass 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III 5,574 5,574
Increase FTE for Management Specialist position 38,516 38,516
Personnel Benefits Costs Increase (Note 2) 41,066 41,066
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $92,391 $0 $92,391
Adjustments (Note 1)(172,006)(172,006)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $92,391 $(172,006)$(79,615)
Non-Salary
Decrease supplies and general expense (12,066)(12,066)
Allocated Charge increase 6,572 6,572
Total Non-Salary $(5,494) $0 $(5,494)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $86,897 $0 $(85,109)
Adjustments (Note 1)(56,626)(56,626)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $86,897 $(228,632)$(141,735)
City Manager
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201278
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
As summarized below, the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget highlights a range of goals and activities that support the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan:
TRANSPORTATION
The Manager's Office will oversee development of various traffic demand management strategies, such as the
citywide shuttle, school corridor commute issues, and transportation infrastructure. (T-43)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The City Manager's Office will continue to coordinate departmental efforts on sustainability (various
Comprehensive Plan programs), oversee the City's participation in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority, and its development of proposals to mitigate flooding. (N-9)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The City Manager's Office will oversee implementation of the City's Infrastructure Management Plan. (C-19, C-
20)
The Manager's Office will oversee joint planning for City, school, and community services projects including
library and extended shuttle services. (Programs C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5)
GOVERNANCE
The City Manager's Office will continue to provide public outreach in the form of community meetings,
newsletters, web-based communications, and other methods, as well as facilitate internal communication
through meetings, print, and electronic communication. (Policy G-3 and Program G-4)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Manager
79
ADMIN AND CITY MANAGEMENT
To provide administrative direction to all operating departments in order to maintain conformance with the Palo Alto Charter and
Municipal Code. To facilitate communications and collaborative problem solving among residents, businesses, and other agencies.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,433,813 1,522,986 1,690,953 1,614,362
Contract Services 329,262 140,990 189,990 135,290
Supplies and Materials 12,001 7,093 14,141 10,801
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 300 300 0
General Expense 55,734 34,377 37,129 34,377
Rents and Leases 64 500 500 150
Allocated Charges 85,585 102,057 101,183 107,755
Operating Transfers Out 2,039 2,039 2,039 2,039
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,918,498 $1,810,342 $2,036,235 $1,904,774
TOTAL REVENUES $487,817 $406,532 $406,532 $522,551
Total Full Time Positions 7.95 7.50 7.50 7.60
Total Temporary Positions 1.03 0.94 0.94 1.00
City Manager
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201280
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
To provide ongoing, informative communications to the City's employees, residents, businesses and other agencies about City
programs, Council priorities, and key issues facing the City.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 168,493 169,352 171,300 161,238
Contract Services 1,270 26,445 26,445 24,445
Supplies and Materials 0 2,020 2,020 1,220
General Expense 325 4,704 4,704 4,204
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $170,088 $202,521 $204,469 $191,107
TOTAL REVENUES $4,700 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.90
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
City Manager
81
SUSTAINABILITY
To promote a culture of environmental stewardship through leadership and coordination of the City’s environmental efforts and
initiatives, and strategically plan for increased sustainability through various policies and programs.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 131,367 93,327 95,417 102,455
Contract Services 59,120 64,250 64,250 61,750
Supplies and Materials 2,313 2,500 1,200 1,250
General Expense 2,713 7,000 7,000 5,500
Allocated Charges 105 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $195,618 $167,077 $167,867 $170,955
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201282
Administrative Services Department
84 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Lalo Perez
ACCOUNTING
1.0-Accounting Manager
GENERAL LEDGER
1.0-Senior Accountant
1.0-Accountant
1.0-Lead Account Specialist
ENTERPRISE FUND
1.0-Senior Accountant
1.0-Accountant
2.0-Account Specialist
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
1.0-Senior Accountant
1.0-Lead Account Specialist
2.0-Account Specialist
PAYROLL
1.0-Senior Accountant
1.0-Accountant
2.0-Payroll Analyst
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds: 58.10 Full-time
2.46 Hourly
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrative Assistant
0.5-Sr Financial Analyst
2.0-Sr Business Analyst
1.0-Business Analyst
1.0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
PURCHASING & CONTRACTS
1.0-Manager, Purch/Contr Admin
3.0-Contract Administrator
1.0-Lead Account Specialist
1.0-Account Specialist
3.0-Buyer
PRINTING & MAIL SERVICES
2.0-Offset Equipment Operator
BUDGET
1.0-Chief Budget Officer
1.0-Administrative Associate III
3.0-Sr Financial Analyst
1.0-Budget OfficerREAL ESTATE
1.0-Real Property Manager
1.0-Sr Financial Analyst
INVESTMENT & DEBT
1.6-Sr Financial Analyst
1.0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
REVENUE COLLECTIONS
1.0-Sr Financial Analyst
2.0-Lead Acctg Specialist
5.5-Accounting Specialist
STORES WAREHOUSE
1.0-Warehouse Supervisor
1.0-Storekeeper, Lead
3.0-Storekeeper
RISK MANAGEMENT
0.5-Sr Financial Analyst
Administrative Services Department
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 85
Administrative Services
Administrative Services
To provide proactive administrative and technical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and
facilitate the optimal use of City resources.
OVERVIEW
The Department has consisted of three major functions: finance, information technology and real estate.
Beginning in FY 2012, Information Technology will be established as its own department, headed by the
Chief Information Officer. With this change, Administrative Services will focus on finance and real estate.
For Fiscal Year 2012 a description of the major services ASD will provide is detailed below.
Financial Analysis
ASD staff will continue to provide analytical, organizational, and administrative support to a wide array of
projects. These include, for example: monitoring major tax revenues and expenditures to ensure a balanced
General Fund Budget; exploring the possibility of an early transition of the Palo Alto Airport from County to
City control; supporting discussions on the expansion of Stanford University's hospital project; supporting
the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, and analyzing funding sources for infrastructure
improvements; supporting upcoming labor negotiations with Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA), and Fire; participating in the City's Energy Risk
Management Program; and preparing updates to the City's Long Range Financial Forecast. Finally, in
coordination with the City Manager's Office, ASD will assist in closing pending budget gaps by identifying
and analyzing solutions to ensure a balanced budget.
Resource Management
ASD is responsible for recording, monitoring, and protecting City assets. For example, the budgeting
function allows for the planning and control of City revenues and expenditures. Accounting staff record
and report on the use of City resources while treasury personnel collect and invest net revenues. In short,
ASD collects, monitors, invests, protects, and projects City revenue streams. These essential duties underpin
the use of funds for City services and programs.
Financial Reporting
Staff will continue to provide essential financial management reports. These include periodic revenue and
expenditure comparisons to budget, midyear budget adjustment recommendations, capital expenditure
reports, and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). A major report is the Long Range
Financial Forecast, mentioned above, which alerts Council, the public and City management to potential
financial issues. ASD risk management staff provides the Utilities Advisory Commission and Council with
independent quarterly reports on the credit worthiness of wholesale energy counterparties and utility
financial risks. Staff continues to improve delivery of financial reporting through green practices such as
limiting printed copies of the CAFRs and reducing the mailing of pay check stubs via alternative online
notification. Lastly, staff supports library bond oversight, monitoring and reporting on conformity of
expenditures with bond requirements.
Business Process Re-engineering
The Department will concentrate resources on improved security measures for SAP, including credit card
authorization systems and, possibly, an automated accounts receivable system.
Infrastructure Management Plan
In concert with the Public Works Department, ASD will continue to support efforts to rehabilitate the City's
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201286
infrastructure. Maintaining and enhancing funding for the replacement and reconditioning of the City's
existing infrastructure is a high priority for the City. The current level of funding at approximately $10 million
per year is inadequate to deal with the General Fund's infrastructure backlog and future maintenance and
replacement needs. With a declining Infrastructure Reserve, identifying resources is both necessary and
challenging. Work with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission will continue to be a primary focus. ASD
also supports the Commission's Finance Subcommittee and co-Chairs, thereby staffing one to two meetings
per week.
Property Management and Acquisition
Real Estate staff continues to provide property lease management, easement acquisition and vacation services,
in addition to providing support for a wide array of unique projects, including working with Foothill College to
explore options for a long term lease or sale of the City-owned 8-acre site at the Cubberley Community Center;
the Palo Alto History Museum’s lease of the Roth Building; the sale and transfer of development rights for the
College Terrace Library, Roth building and Sea Scout building; working with the VTA on the Highway 101
Auxiliary Lane Project; and the potential use of portions of the Municipal Service Center space for a car
dealership.
Purchasing and Contract Administration
The Division will continue to support the purchasing and contracting needs of all City Departments, while also
supporting City Finances by providing bottom-line value. For year-to-date FY 2011, the Purchasing Division
achieved $11,661,000 dollars in direct cost savings through the management of the solicitation and contract
award process. Accordingly, the Division will continue to centrally manage the Purchasing and Contracting
Process and take a leadership role in streamlining procurement activities. The Division will also continue to
support Emergency Preparedness in providing procurement assistance to ensure that goods and services
needed during an emergency are available for City Operations. Finally, the Purchasing Team will continue to be
an integral part of the Environmental Sustainability Priority. This will occur through emphasizing sustainability
in City purchasing decisions and in facilitating the bid and award process of Green Products and Services.
Cable Franchising
ASD personnel are responsible for cable franchise administration and enforcement for a Joint Powers Authority
(JPA), which includes the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the town of Atherton, and portions
of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. ASD will continue to oversee franchise agreement compliance; monitor
complaints from customers; manage public, education, and government (PEG) channel resources; and collect
and distribute franchise fees. The JPA has an agreement with the Media Center for the operation and
management of its seven PEG channels and facilities. This agreement will expire on June 30, 2011; ASD will
negotiate a new agreement prior to the expiration date. In addition, ASD administers an Institutional Network
(I-Net) of fiber optic cable connecting 70 schools, libraries, public buildings, and community centers in the JPA
service area with the capability of delivering data, video, and voice communications. Comcast's I-Net
obligations expired in July 2010. ASD staff continues to negotiate with Comcast for the continued provision of
I-Net services.
PROGRAM UPDATE
The Administrative Services Department has accomplished the following during Fiscal Year 2011:
• Presented to Council a 2010 Midyear budget that closed a $6.2 million budget gap
• Updated the 2010-2020 Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) and presented the 2011-2021 LRFF to the
Finance Committee and Council. The LRFF identifies General Fund revenue and expenditure trends so
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services
87
that appropriate budget adjustments can be made. At the Finance Committee's request, staff provided an
additional update to the 2010-2020 Forecast in October 2010, adding several alternate scenarios for
comparison. After presenting the 2011-2021 Forecast to the Finance Committee in February, staff made
several modifications to the Forecast before presenting it to Council in March. This year's Forecast pointed
to continued, long-term structural deficits which must be addressed in the FY 2012 and future budgets.
• Participated in the continuing evaluation of the Stanford Hospital Expansion
• Worked with City Auditor's Office in its Cash Handling Audit, and began implementing its
recommendations
• Supported and participated in cross-union discussions of health care cost-sharing options, analyzing all
cost savings proposals put forth by group members
• Assisted in labor negotiations and discussions with SEIU, Police and the Management group
• Implemented SAP support packages of particular importance to Human Resources and Payroll functions.
• Implemented an outsourcing of Utility payment processing to Wells Fargo Bank, elminating the need for a
.5 FTE Hourly position and the purchase of equipment costing over $100,000.
• Completed a total cost of ownership benchmark review of SAP - analyzing what the system has cost the
City and comparing that to the cost to other agencies
Many of the projects and analyses cited above are ongoing and will continue into Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond.
For example, ASD will:
• Continue to support implementation of the upgrade to the SAP financial system
• Present to the Finance Committee updates on the Palo Alto Airport Business Plan in order to revisit the
option to take over the airport from the County prior to 2017
• Continue to explore efficiencies and revenue generating options to close future budget gaps
• Complete the MyCalPERS web site upgrade, increasing self-service functionality
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
For Fiscal Year 2012, the Administrative Services Department will support implementation of 3 of the City
Council's Top 5 Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• Monitor revenue sources and make recommendations for necessary adjustments to expenditure levels in
order to maintain a balanced General Fund budget. Provide contracting support for the Infrastructure
Management Plan through a comprehensive contract planning and execution process
• Promote expansion of the City's revenue base through negotiations with Stanford on development
projects, and with auto dealers to retain them within the City
Emergency Preparedness
• Provide purchasing and contracting support to ensure that goods and services required during an
emergency are available to support operations
Environmental Sustainability
• Implement green procurement practices following the City's adopted sustainability purchasing policy
• Extend the use of direct deposit and online notification in lieu of mailed checks and paystubs
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201288
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 566,738 853,266 850,170 889,189 39,019
Accounting 1,669,861 1,594,610 1,612,149 1,695,847 83,698
Purchasing 1,249,672 1,110,972 1,120,141 1,076,467 (43,674)
Real Estate 1,953,633 580,597 711,250 599,711 (111,539)
Treasury 1,553,331 1,379,277 1,390,390 1,416,517 26,127
Budget 879,325 773,828 783,547 836,622 53,075
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,872,560 $6,292,550 $6,467,647 $6,514,353 $46,706
TOTAL REVENUES $3,259,657 $2,812,373 $2,812,373 $3,252,840 $440,467
INTERNAL REVENUES 3,210,859 2,800,073 2,800,073 3,240,540 440,467
EXTERNAL REVENUES 48,798 12,300 12,300 12,300 0
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 5,786,499 5,096,319 5,151,483 5,318,499
Contract Services 100,898 277,556 282,111 239,710
Supplies and Materials 33,478 57,694 52,909 51,964
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,417,708 3,100 3,100 3,100
General Expense 157,850 186,263 311,493 194,789
Rents and Leases 11,153 11,153 11,153 11,153
Allocated Charges 364,974 660,465 655,398 695,138
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,872,560 $6,292,550 $6,467,647 $6,514,353
TOTAL REVENUES $3,259,657 $2,812,373 $2,812,373 $3,252,840
Total Full Time Positions 41.95 37.49 37.49 37.69
Total Temporary Positions 2.25 2.67 2.67 1.38
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of accounts payable checks issued (SEA)12,609 14,500 13,000
2. Number of purchasing documents processed (SEA)2,314 2,575 2,350
3. Number of real property acquisitions and conveyances (fees, easements,
BMR, permits, leases and document transfer tax)185 200 200
4. Cash and investments (in millions), excluding bond proceeds (SEA)$345.5 $342.0 $353.0
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services
89
Efficiency:
1. Average cost to issue an accounts payable check (estimated)$27 $27 25
2. Average cost to process a purchase order/contract (estimated)$227 $229 $229
3. Average cost to complete each real property acquisition and conveyance
(estimated)$1,260 $1,260 $1,260
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of invoices paid within 30 days (estimated) (SEA)78% 80%80%
2. Percent of purchases/contracts completed within established timeframes
(estimated)80% 80%80%
3. Average time (in days) to complete each real property acquisition and
conveyance 45 45 60
4. Rate of return on investments compared to the annual average yield on a
three-year Treasury note +2.46% +2.14%+2.40%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase allocated revenues-internal 440,467 440,467
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $440,467 $0 $440,467
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Drop 1 FTE Budget Manager, add 1 FTE Chief Budget Officer 19,413 19,413
Reclass 1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to 1 FTE Budget Officer 13,094 13,094
Reclass .80 FTE Deputy Director, Administrative Services to .80 FTE Assistant
Director, Administrative Services; reallocate .10 FTE from Enterprise Funds 24,415 24,415
Add 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst 12,271 12,271
Drop 1 FTE Graphic Designer, add 1 FTE Administrative Associate III (11,526)(11,526)
Reduce temporary salaries (37,949)(37,949)
Reduce overtime (2,007)(2,007)
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 204,467 204,467
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $222,178 $0 $222,178
Adjustments (Note 1)(55,162)(55,162)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $222,178 $(55,162)$167,016
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201290
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
The following changes will maximize the effectiveness of the Administrative Services Department:
• Dropping a Graphic Design position and adding an Administrative Associate III will increase clerical
support for the department.
• Dropping a Budget Manager position and adding a Chief Budget Officer position will provide a high level
of oversight to the City’s finances, operations, and management.
• Reclassifying one Senior Analyst position to Budget Officer will provide appropriate and adequate
support to the Chief Budget Officer.
• Increasing 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst will increase the Department’s capabilities for providing long
range projections, various analyses, and support the City’s cable franchise operations.
• Reclassification of a Deputy Director of Administrative Services to Assitant Director of Administrative
Services properly aligns the job classification with the duties currently needed and performed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 Administrative Services Department Budget includes the following resources
directed toward implementing the program and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
TRANSPORTATION
Through implementation of the IT Strategic Plan, the Department will provide technical assistance to expand
the range of City services that can be received online. (T-10)
Non-Salary
Decrease bank charges (10,000)(10,000)
Decrease business registry contract services (39,000)(39,000)
Increase memberships for ICMA Leadership 10,000 10,000
Allocated charge increase 38,623 38,623
Total Non-Salary $(377) $0 $(377)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(377) $0 $166,639
Adjustments (Note 1)(119,933)(119,933)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $221,801 $(175,095)$46,706
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services
91
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Staff has completed a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure replacement and maintenance needs, and in
1997-98, obtained Council approval for a 10-year Infrastructure Management Plan. The projects emerging from
this plan are included in the CIP Budget. In Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, the Administrative Services Department
will continue to pursue new revenue sources to complete funding for the Infrastructure Management Plan. (C-
20)
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
ASD staff monitors the local economy closely to determine trends that affect City revenues. It is active in
supporting the maintenance and attraction of key revenue generating business that generate resources to
provide City services. For example, ASD is participating in the formation of a development agreement with the
Stanford hospital.
GOVERNANCE
The Department will provide leadership in establishing a liaison system between the City and the community
through the use of electronic media to inform residents of current issues, to conveniently connect citizens to
City services, and to facilitate resident feedback to the City Council and staff. (G-4)
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201292
ACCOUNTING
To process and record the financial transactions of the City in an accurate and timely manner, and to develop and maintain financial
systems that provide pertinent information to all users.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,628,653 1,549,505 1,567,044 1,645,742
Contract Services 8,181 13,005 18,735 21,308
Supplies and Materials 14,171 28,200 22,470 22,470
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 1,000 1,000 1,000
General Expense 1,319 2,900 2,900 5,327
Allocated Charges 17,537 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,669,861 $1,594,610 $1,612,149 $1,695,847
TOTAL REVENUES $1,774 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 12.61 12.48 12.48 12.58
Total Temporary Positions 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.21
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services
93
PURCHASING
To provide the City of Palo Alto with goods and services in an efficient, cost-effective, and timely manner.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,202,714 1,052,342 1,061,511 1,017,837
Contract Services 2,066 4,910 4,680 2,800
Supplies and Materials 6,643 7,313 7,313 7,313
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,803 1,000 1,000 1,000
General Expense 4,838 6,102 6,332 8,212
Allocated Charges 31,608 39,305 39,305 39,305
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,249,672 $1,110,972 $1,120,141 $1,076,467
TOTAL REVENUES $23,906 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Total Full Time Positions 9.18 7.04 7.04 7.04
Total Temporary Positions 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.63
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201294
REAL ESTATE
To manage and efficiently utilize City properties to maximize monetary and non-monetary benefits to the City and community.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 448,126 460,400 466,053 479,514
Contract Services 44,373 46,598 46,598 45,560
Supplies and Materials 94 606 606 606
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,415,905 0 0 0
General Expense 33,354 61,840 186,840 62,878
Rents and Leases 11,153 11,153 11,153 11,153
Allocated Charges 628 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,953,633 $580,597 $711,250 $599,711
TOTAL REVENUES $(4,930) $3,400 $3,400 $3,400
Total Full Time Positions 3.02 2.44 2.44 2.44
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.46
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services
95
TREASURY
To manage the City's money and debt issuance, including placement and safeguarding of investments, billing, cash receipting,
collections, and deposits
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,364,969 1,118,708 1,129,821 1,205,998
Contract Services 50,567 138,443 138,443 97,542
Supplies and Materials 11,274 17,825 17,825 17,825
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 600 600 600
General Expense 112,192 103,701 103,701 94,552
Allocated Charges 14,329 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,553,331 $1,379,277 $1,390,390 $1,416,517
TOTAL REVENUES $27,888 $2,900 $2,900 $2,900
Total Full Time Positions 10.49 9.92 9.92 10.02
Total Temporary Positions 1.40 1.52 1.52 0.08
Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201296
BUDGET
To prepare financial and policy analyses, to prepare timely, accurate financial reports, and to provide management and Council with
accurate financial information and forecasting to support sound resource allocation decisions.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 849,154 751,128 760,847 813,922
Contract Services 17,431 18,500 18,500 18,000
Supplies and Materials 0 1,600 1,600 1,600
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 500 500 500
General Expense 1,085 2,100 2,100 2,600
Allocated Charges 11,655 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $879,325 $773,828 $783,547 $836,622
TOTAL REVENUES $160 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 5.32 4.68 4.68 4.68
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Community Services Department
98 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
1.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
Greg Betts
RECREATION AND CUBBERLEY
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Recreation & Golf
0.75-Admin Associate III
RECREATION
2.0-Supervisor, Recreation Programs
4.0-Coordinator, Recreation Programs
1.0-Building Service Person
1.75-Program Assistant I
CUBBERLEY CENTER
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Program Manager
2.0-Program Assistant I
2.0-Building Serviceperson-Lead
1.0-Building Serviceperson
1.0-Program Assistant II
0.75- Prod Arts/Science Program
FY 2012 Position Totals:74.50 Full-time
48.71 Hourly
ARTS & SCIENCES
ADMINISTRATION
1.0- Division Mgr, Arts & Sciences
ART CENTER
1.0- Manager, Arts
4.25-Producer Arts
1.25-Program Assistant I
1.0- Program Assistant II
0.5-Volunteer Coordinator
CHILDREN’S & COMMUNITY
THEATRE
1.0- Manager, Arts
1.0-Theatre Specialist
1.0-Program Assistant I
3.0-Producer Arts
YOUTH SCIENCES & INTERPRETIVE
1.0- Community Services Senior
Program
4.0- Producer Arts/Science Program
1.0-Program Assistant I
2.25 - JMZ Educator
OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Open Space & Parks
1.0-Program Assistant II
OPEN SPACE
2.0-Supervisor, Open Space
5.0-Park Ranger
PARKS
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Park Superintendent
CITY PARKS & FACILITIES
2.0-Inspector, Field Services
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
1.0-Parks Maintenance Person
ATHLETIC FIELD
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1.0-Supervisor, Parks
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
5.0-Park Maintenance Person
1.0-Park Maintenance Lead
CAPITAL PROJECTS
1.0 - Program Assistant 1
GOLF
1.0-Community Services Superintendent
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrative Assistant
1.0-Senior Management Analyst
HUMAN SERVICES
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Recreation Program
1.0-Management Assistant
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 99
Community Services
Community Services
To engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts,
and sciences.
OVERVIEW
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Community Services Department (CSD) will continue to provide the Palo Alto
community with services and programs both directly and through partnerships with community
organizations.
Arts and Sciences
The Arts and Sciences Division provides visual and performing arts, music and dance, and science programs
to adults and youth, including a focus on family programs.
The division administers and manages the Art Center, Children's Theatre, Community Theatre, Junior
Museum and Zoo, interpretive programs, the Public Art Commission, Civic Center lobby exhibitions, and
also the Cubberley Artist Studios which provides affordably priced studio space to local artists who also
donate works to Palo Alto's Art in Public Places program.
The Art Center now is “On the Road” as the facility is under a year-long renovation project. The Palo Alto Art
Center Foundation (PAACF) in partnership with the City has led a capital building campaign for expansion
of the facility including a dedicated children's wing and enhanced exhibition and visitor spaces. During
construction the Art Center will be “On the Road” offering classes and exhibits remotely throughout the
City. With the addition of an Art Truck, staff will be offering unique visitor experiences by bringing exhibits
to local schools and parks. This will be inclusive of the Project LOOK! program.
The Palo Alto Children's Theatre continues its progress in implementing an arts-based education program.
Enrollment in classes continues to increase and several shows are tied in with the reading curriculum of
local schools. The theatre also promotes performing arts in local elementary and middle schools with show
productions both in the schools and at the theatre. With such efforts, the audience at shows has increased
as well.
The Junior Museum and Zoo remains a place for children to explore, create, discover, and play. With science
exhibits and over 50 species of animals, children are able to engage their curiosity of science and nature. A
new exhibit, “Buzzzz”, allows kids to explore the beauty of bugs and their fascinating life stories by
observing living spiders and insects, studying a pinned specimen collection, and exploring hands-on
exhibits.
The division continues to address budget challenges by operating with a reduction of one and a half full
time equivalents in various positions. This is achieved through a combination of reduced staff hours and
not filling vacancies in Fiscal Year 2012.
Open Space, Parks and Golf
The Open Space, Parks and Golf Maintenance Division is responsible for the conservation and maintenance
of more than 4,000 acres of urban and open space parkland. Open Space services provide ecology and
natural history interpretive programs for youth and adults through campfires, special interest nature
programs, and guided walks. Ranger staff continue to provide protection of open space areas and safety to
park visitors through patrols and response to emergency calls for service.
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012100
Projects continue to be implemented to rebuild aging infrastructure by improving tread and drainage
problems on trails in the foothills and restoring the height and width of a Baylands emergency access levee.
Staff continue to partner with volunteer organizations such as Save The Bay, Friends of Foothills Park, and
Acterra to restore degraded habitat with native plants. Staff will also collaborate with the Friends of the Palo
Alto Parks to develop designs for the Magical Bridge playground, a universal access playground planned for
Mitchell Park. Fundraising for the playground will be led by the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks.
Staff uses non-toxic methods such as timed mowing and sheet mulching to control non-native weeds and
mechanical trapping of nuisance rodents. Staff also continues to work with Acterra and Save The Bay in
propagating thousands of native plants in on-site nurseries which are used in creek and habitat restoration
projects.
Parks Services is collaborating with neighborhood associations, friend groups, and tree enthusiasts on multiple
infrastructure park projects scheduled for the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library, El Camino Park, and
median landscaping. These projects include landscape improvements for a newly constructed library and
community center including a green roof, construction of a synthetic turf sports field at El Camino Park in
conjunction with the installation of an emergency well system by our Utilities Department, and median
landscaping on San Antonio Road. Park Services continues to maintain Palo Alto Unified School District middle
and elementary school athletic fields.
As part of a reorganization, Golf operations merged with Open Space and Parks in Fiscal Year 2011. Golf
Services oversees maintenance of our 18-hole championship length golf course. The 55-year-old, 176-acre
facility is preparing to undergo some physical changes in the near future as we work with the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve staff to
incorporate the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Project. This involves a
proposed removal or relocation of a levee that currently separates San Francisquito Creek from the Faber Tract
and Golf Course. These changes will lead to modifications of several golf holes.
The division is addressing budget reductions while maintaining service levels through implementation of
alternative service providers. Rinconada Park, Mitchell Park, the Lawn Bowl, Municipal Golf Course, Lucie Stern
Community Center, and Art Center are now maintained by contractors. This is in addition to smaller parks
where maintenance was already previously contracted out. With these named parks and facilities maintained
on a contract basis, the division operates with more than ten fewer staff members than in Fiscal Year 2010.
However, to ensure safety and quality standards are met the division regularly inspects contracted
maintenance.
Recreation and Cubberley Community Center
Recreation Services and Cubberley Community Center have merged to form one division in Fiscal Year 2011.
The Cubberley Community Center is a 35-acre facility that hosts community artists, dance groups, childcare
centers, Foothill College, and many nonprofit organizations such as Cardiac Therapy and Adolescent
Counseling Services. The thriving center continues to provide a full array of community facilities including
fields, tennis courts, a track, gymnasiums, a theater and classrooms, all of which are available for public rental.
Recreation Services provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community. During the year,
staff will continue to focus on creating a culture of fitness and healthy living in Palo Alto by encouraging the
involvement of individuals and families in creative and fun activities. With budget challenges, staff continues to
work diligently to recover additional program costs through fees, partnerships, grants, and donations.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
101
Recreation Services continues to focus efforts on youth and teen programming as it relates to the Youth Master
Plan. The division pursues collaborative programming efforts with other nonprofit agencies serving youth to
better target quality services for this age group. Coordinating a multi-agency task force called Project Safety
Net, working on teen suicide prevention and the social and emotional health of youth and teens, remains a
focus. During this year and in conjunction with the Palo Alto Unified School District, the division will develop a
strategic plan for the Project Safety Net Community Task Force. The strategic planning effort will be funded by
Santa Clara County in hopes that our experience in suicide prevention may be of help to other communities.
Strategies such as gatekeeper programs, community education, teen resiliency programs and adoption of the
'41 Developmental Assets' are all part of a set of strategies designed to improve our community “safety net” for
teens.
The division emphasizes customer service through professionalism and knowledgeable staff, while efficiently
marketing new and existing programs and classes. Recreation will measure customer satisfaction through
surveys and other evaluation methods. The Recreation Division will continue to encourage program
participants to use the Internet-based registration system to facilitate a more efficient registration process.
The construction of a new Mitchell Park Community Center and Library is well on its way and presents an
exciting new facility for residents and will continue to be a focus for staff as this project develops. The design of
the new center is an example of civic engagement contributions towards the form and functionality of the new
center. Teens, parents, library and community center users, City staff, and elected officials have provided input
throughout the design process. This year staff and residents will be engaged in the selection of furnishings for
the center and begin planning programs and services offered once construction of the facility is completed.
The center is scheduled to open in the summer of 2012.
In the mean time, programming has moved to the Cubberley Community Center, including “The Drop” teen
center. This temporary teen center is close to sports playing fields and tennis courts, and the indoor space
includes two spacious rooms for activities and games. The teen center is open every afternoon when school is
in session.
Office of Human Services
The Office of Human Services continues to provide assistance to people in need by coordinating $1.1 million in
grants to nonprofit organizations through the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) and by
providing comprehensive information about resources for the entire community through the Family Resources
Program. Approximately 500 calls annually are received by Family Resources which also coordinates an annual
Family Ambassador Program where 25 community members participate in 25 hours of training over four
months to learn about the variety of family resources available in our community so they can support their
family, friends and neighbors in times of need, and spread the word about the wide array of programs available.
Staff work with a number of community groups to identify community needs that may be addressed through
Human Services. These groups include the Human Relations Commission, the Child Care Advisory Committee,
and the Extended School Child Care Directors Group.
PROGRAM UPDATE
In Fiscal Year 2011, the Community Services Department implemented the following programs:
• Children's Theatre introduced the world premiere of Metamorphosis: Junior Year. The theatre worked
closely with author Betsy Franco as she adapted her book into a stage play.
• The bat house at the Junior Museum & Zoo was remodeled to engage and educate guests in the habitat
of African bats.
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012102
• Recreation continued to focus on youth development with programming for toddlers through teens,
including the adoption of 41 Developmental Assets.
• Human Services completed training the 11th annual team of ambassadors to refer nonprofit services in
the community.
• The Junior Museum and Zoo exhibited “Clean, Green, Energy Machines” which focused on environmental
education and energy conservation.
• A capital improvement of Greer Park was completed including irrigation and playing field turf renovations
and a 1.5 acre addition for passive recreation. The project was managed by both Parks and Recreation.
• A capital improvement of a former locker room and shower facility at Cubberley Community Center was
converted to multi-use Gym Activity Room.
• More than $3 million was invested in City Parks and Open Space throughout the City.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Community Services Department will support the implementation of the City Council's
Top Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• With continued budget challenges facing the City in Fiscal Year 2012, the Community Services
Department is increasing fees for classes, camps and activities in an effort to move towards higher levels
of cost recovery. The department is also working towards expanding cost recovery beyond classes and
camps in areas such as community gardens and facility rentals. In addition, the department continues to
implement alternative service delivery by contracting out several areas such as park maintenance,
custodial services, and golf course maintenance to lower costs while maintaining quality service.
• Community Services staff actively seek private and grant funding for the replacement and renovation of
aging infrastructure, the enhancement of park, community and art center facilities, and program support.
Emergency Preparedness
• The Cubberley Community Center is a planned emergency response center. The facility will be made
ready as a shelter at times when needed to respond to any disaster or emergency.
• Open Space rangers have worked closely with the Fire Department on the implementation of the
Foothills Wildland Fire Management Plan. Rangers are trained in fire fighting and emergency response to
provide security and safety for park visitors and open space natural resources. Staff may also be deployed
to assist police personnel in responding to non-critical calls for service.
Youth Well-Being
• The City's Community Services Department with its many partners have taken an active role in organizing
a multidisciplinary group of individuals and agencies to develop an effective Teen Suicide Prevention Plan
focused on education, prevention and intervention. Work continues in 2011 and 2012 to further develop
an integrated system of community strategies to provide a “safety net” for youth and teens through the
Project Safety Net Community Task Force.
• The City's Recreation staff and PAUSD continue to collaborate in providing after-school sports for the
three middle schools. This middle school athletic program is a “no cut” program where every middle
school student who enrolls has an opportunity to play. Sports offered include flag football, volleyball,
cross-country, basketball, track and field, golf and wrestling.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
103
• Community Services staff continues to work closely with youth leadership groups such as the Teen Arts
Council, Youth Council, Teen Advisory Board, and Junior Advisory Board, along with the Palo Alto
Recreation Foundation and volunteers, to help shape programs and services to meet current and future
community needs.
Environmental Sustainability
• The Art Center, working with the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, included “green” building
considerations in their renovation plans to expand the Art Center which is being constructed in 2011 and
2012.
• The Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division continues to actively support partnerships with a variety of
environmental organizations, recreation clubs, sports groups, Acterra, Save The Bay, and Friends of the
Palo Alto Parks in order to provide special interest classes, augment City services, and enhance facilities
and programs offered to the public. Parks staff works with neighborhood associations to “adopt-a-park”
and encourage volunteers to plant colorful flower beds in their local parks. The division also continues to
further limit the use of pesticides in parks. Staff works closely with neighbors and interested parties in the
design of infrastructure improvements.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 1,100,249 1,392,082 1,387,546 1,467,671 80,125
Arts and Sciences 4,606,451 4,255,481 4,345,740 4,401,769 56,029
Cubberley and Human Services 3,110,339 2,822,547 2,838,878 2,903,602 64,724
Open Space and Parks 5,839,351 5,997,186 6,001,092 6,293,806 292,714
Recreation and Golf 5,840,939 5,571,403 5,581,163 5,636,404 55,241
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252 $548,833
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257 $(112,583)
INTERNAL REVENUES 120,373 99,600 51,659 51,659 0
EXTERNAL REVENUES 7,130,554 7,413,098 7,478,181 7,365,598 (112,583)
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012104
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 11,510,905 9,879,245 9,951,376 10,576,066
Contract Services 2,980,908 3,718,204 3,762,596 3,979,427
Supplies and Materials 614,137 789,140 803,140 699,232
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 46,420 78,700 78,700 72,700
General Expense 1,268,839 1,376,774 1,373,016 1,386,556
Rents and Leases 16,759 23,766 23,816 24,466
Allocated Charges 4,052,371 4,165,880 4,154,785 3,957,815
Operating Transfers Out 6,990 6,990 6,990 6,990
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257
Total Full Time Positions 94.25 74.50 74.50 73.50
Total Temporary Positions 52.14 49.32 49.32 48.71
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of Community Services classes and camps taught (SEA)1,072 1,018 967
2. Number of classes and camps sessions cancelled 390 371 352
Efficiency:
1. Percentage of registrations online (SEA)55% 57%60%
2. Number of classes and camps refunds processed 1,058 1,005 955
16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000 19,500 20,000
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Enrollment in Community Services Classes (By Fiscal Year)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
105
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating the range/variety of classes good or excellent in citizen
survey (SEA)82% 85%87%
2. Percentage of refunds processed by credit cards 93% 94%95%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Recreation and Golf
Reduce golf course revenue (70,000)(70,000)
Increase revenue for middle school athletics and recreation camps 70,000 70,000
Reduce class program fees based on historical trend (47,500)(47,500)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(47,500) $0 $(47,500)
Adjustments (Note1)(65,083)(65,083)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(47,500) $(65,083)$(112,583)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Arts and Sciences
Reduction of 0.50 FTE Program Assistant 1 (48,460)(48,460)
Cubberley and Human Services
Elimination of 0.5 FTE Coordinator, Recreations Program (Family Resources
Program)(50,711)(50,711)
Elimination of 0.24 Hourly FTE at Cubberley (8,795)(8,795)
Recreation and Golf
Elimination of 0.24 Hourly FTE at Lucie Stern (8,795)(8,795)
Addition of 0.35 Hourly FTE for Middle School Athletics - offset by revenues 13,000 13,000
Addition of 0.67 Hourly FTE for Day Camps - offset by revenues 25,000 25,000
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(30,301) $(48,460)$(78,761)
Increase in Personnel Benefit Costs (Note 2) 703,451 703,451
Total Net Salary and Benefits Changes $673,150 $(48,460)$624,690
Non-Salary
Administration
Increase in bank service charges 23,000 23,000
Arts and Sciences
New appropriation for the maintenance of public art 35,000 35,000
Open Space and Parks
Reduction in water consumption for Foothills Park turf due to anticipated sav-
ings (25,000)(25,000)
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012106
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
Note 3: Allocated charges from Vehicle Fund are decreasing mainly due to reduction in the number of fleet
maintained in City Parks and Golf Course due to the contracting out of the maintenance of these facilities.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
In Fiscal Year 2012, the following are planned to be implemented:
• With the year long renovation and expansion of the Art Center, the programs are now “On the Road”. Art
staff has relocated to various locations at Cubberley and Lucie Stern Community Centers while classes
and camps are offered at alternative locations such as the Media Center and Museum of American
Heritage. Exhibitions, Project LOOK!, and Family Days are offered off site with the use of an art truck
funded by a grant received through the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation.
Due to the economic environment and budget reductions, service level changes within the Community
Services Department are as follows:
• Maintenance services at Mitchell and Rinconada Parks, Lawn Bowling Green, and Palo Alto Municipal Golf
Course remain contracted out as a cost saving measure.
• The department will reduce staff hours and delay filling vacancies in various program areas as a cost
saving measure. Various positions are impacted totaling two and a half full time equivalents.
• At the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, staff will explore decreasing the percentage of potable water
usage and increasing the percentage of recycled water due to increases in water rates. Should the option
be implemented, staff will monitor the health of the turf for changes resulting from the change in fresh
and recycled water mix.
Recreation and Golf
Reduction in allocated charges from Vehicle Fund (Note 3) (137,449)(137,449)
Increase materials and supplies for the Middle School Athletics program - off-
set by revenues 7,000 7,000
Total Non-Salary Changes $(97,449) $0 $(97,449)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $575,701 $(48,460)$527,241
Adjustments (Note 1)56,113 56,113
Decrease in allocated charges (34,521)(34,521)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $541,180 $7,653 $548,833
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
107
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the Community Services Department will implement elements of the Comprehensive Plan as
follows:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Arts and Sciences Division will continue to explore, recommend, and commission opportunities for art in
community centers and public places throughout the city. (Policies L-15, L-16, L-18, L-19, L-21, L-28, L-47, L-61, L-
62, L-64, L-69, L-70, L-72)
The Public Art Commission will work with the Parks Division to initiate parks art projects. Parks operations will
complete a variety of infrastructure projects to strengthen and enhance the identity of community “Entry
Points” (gateways) and other City-maintained areas with appropriate art and landscaping. (Policies L-72, L-73)
TRANSPORTATION
Parks operations will use infrastructure median capital projects and other landscape projects to establish clear
gateways. (Program T-42)
Open Space operations will continue to conduct systematic brush clearing and the repair of trail tread on 95
percent of open space trails and staff will provide regular maintenance of off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths.
(Program T-29) Staff will continue to implement the Arastradero Preserve Trail Master Plan by abandoning and
restoring inappropriately sloped or sited trails. This will reduce environmental impacts along sensitive riparian
corridors. (Program T-29)
HOUSING
The Office of Human Services is a member of the City Manager's Housing Task Force. This task force participates
in regional, statewide, and national meetings on housing and human services. Additional resources,
collaborations, and outside funding will be increased to address community needs. (Policies H-2, H-12,
Programs H-23, H-24, H-25, H-30, H-32)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Parks operations will implement the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan with the
following programs: Preservation and protection of heritage trees and native oaks in urban park settings (Policy
N-17); irrigation system improvements to maximize conservation and make efficient use of water resources
(Policy N-21); Best Management Practices programs related to technologies, operating methods and other
measures that control, prevent and reduce pollution (Policies N-28, N-30); implementing “Spare the Air”
methodologies within maintenance operations (Goal N-5); and by participating in the San Francisquito Creek
resource management and planning. (Programs N-9, N-13)
Both Parks and Golf operations will continue their tree planting programs (Program N-17) and will continue to
pursue resources for tree planting (Program N-18); continue maintenance programs to minimize the use of
toxic and hazardous materials (Policy N-30); and use recyclable goods for park furnishings and other
equipment replacement (Policy N-36). Parks and Golf operations will continue to protect the community from
excessive noise impacts (Policies N-40, N-42, N-43, Program N-59).
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012108
Open Space will work with specialized contractors to control invasive, non-native plants in open space areas
using environmentally safe integrated pest management practices (Policy N-30). Using plants propagated at
the Save The Bay and Acterra native plant nurseries staff and volunteers will continue to restore degraded
habitat (Goal N-1).
Golf operations will continue environmentally sound maintenance programs to preserve and protect the bay,
marshlands, and other natural water and wetland areas. (Policy N-8)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Arts and Sciences will continue to work as a public/private partnership with the Palo Alto Art Center
Foundation for the purposes of renovating and expanding the Art Center (Program C-19), and providing art
education programs and outreach between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, working through the PAUSD and
Ravenswood School Districts. The Art Center will continue to mount exhibitions and education programs that
are accessible to the community on all levels. The Children's Theatre will continue to work cooperatively with
the PAUSD and other agencies to design and provide educational programs, classes, and outreach programs
appealing to a broad range of ages and educational backgrounds. (Policy C-17)
Arts and Sciences will work with PAUSD to determine ways that schools can be made more available to the
community for weekend and evening use. (Program C-4)
The Department will deliver City services in a manner that creates and reinforces positive relationships among
City employees, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. (Policy C-9)
The Department will continue to support provision, funding, and promotion of services and programs for
adults, children, and youth. (Policy C-12)
The Department will encourage the continuation and development of after-school, weekend, and evening
programs for children, youth, and teens. (Program C-18)
Arts and Sciences will explore ways to expand the space available in the community for art exhibits, classes, and
other cultural activities, and plan renovation and expansion of the Art Center to provide space for more classes
and exhibits. (Policy C-23)
Arts and Sciences will develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of
community facilities, and keep these facilities as viable community assets. (Program C-19)
Parks operations will address accessibility issues through playground and infrastructure renovations (Program
C-19). In addition Parks operations will continue its collaborative relationship with PAUSD in cooperative cost
sharing for athletic field maintenance. (Policies C-1, C-4)
Golf operations will continue the quality and affordability of youth and senior services (Goal C-3); continue to
implement a customer service evaluation system (related to strategies for improving customer service) (Policy
C-10); continue staff training in customer service oriented management techniques (Program C-11).
The Office of Human Services will continue supporting the provision of school-age child care services and the
allocation of child care subsidy funds to low-income families. Human Services continues to support the Child
Care Advisory Committee and its implementation of the Child Care Master Plan. (Programs C-13, C-14, Goal C-3,
Policies C-11, C-13)
The Office of Human Services, in collaboration with non-profit service providers, continue to play a principal
role with the Opportunity Center to serve low-income and homeless people and families. (Policies C-7, C-1)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
109
Recreation will continue implementation of the Youth Master Plan goals and action steps. (Programs C-1, C-18,
Policy C-7) Recreation staff will continue to provide programs for families with an emphasis upon programs
geared toward preschool, elementary, middle school youth and teens. (Program C-18) The Youth and Teen
program will continue to work with at-risk youth and implement programs incorporating mentoring and
coaching opportunities combined with a variety of recreational activities. (Program C-1)
The Cubberley Community Center will continue to develop public/private partnerships to improve the interiors
of meeting rooms, dance studios, and gymnasiums, and will continue to maintain landscaping. (Program C-19)
The Junior Museum and Zoo will work in close partnership with the Friends of the Junior Museum to develop
architectural plans for a replacement of the Junior Museum that will enhance the provision of educational
classes and programs, provide better animal care facilities, and improve the safety and efficiency of the
Museum and Zoo. (Program C-19)
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Arts and Sciences will continue to explore, recommend, and commission opportunities for art in public places
with particular emphasis on Palo Alto business districts, parks, and City projects. (Program B-3)
Arts and Sciences will encourage the use of public/private partnerships as a means of redeveloping and
revitalizing programs and facilities. (Policy B-11)
Arts and Sciences will continue to encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships with nonprofit or
public agencies to provide community benefits and services that would not otherwise be made available.
(Policy B-12)
Golf operations will promote an attractive, vibrant golf course, and support public/private partnerships for
revitalizing golf business operations. (Policy B-11)
Parks operations will improve street corridor landscaping to enhance business district vitality and economic
viability (Policy B-19), and will improve El Camino Real landscaping to strengthen the commercial viability and
improved environment for pedestrians. (Policy B-25)
Cubberley Community Center will continue to promote increased daytime use of the Center by the business
community for workshops, seminars, corporate meetings, and training sessions in order to maximize use of the
facilities and increase revenues.
GOVERNANCE
Arts and Sciences will encourage citizen volunteers, including youth and seniors, to provide community
services. Where feasible, allocate City staff time and resources to projects initiated by volunteers that could not
otherwise be accomplished. (Policy G-10)
Arts and Sciences will continue and expand programs to enhance opportunities for volunteer assistance.
(Program G-11)
Arts and Sciences will continue to provide support to the Public Art Commission, and Cubberley Artists Studios
(Policy G-2). Arts and Sciences will work with the Friends of the Children's Theatre, the Palo Alto Art Center
Foundation, and the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo to develop fund-raising alternatives in support of
the programs and services offered.
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012110
The Office of Human Services will continue to staff the City of Palo Alto's Human Relations Commission and
provide support to its Ad-Hoc committees. (Programs G-11, G-12)
Golf operations will continue the resident reservation system and use of advisory bodies to assist staff on policy
and operational issues. (Policy G-2)
Parks operations will continue its involvement in community meetings to address design issues related to
playgrounds, landscaping and traffic calming projects, and will support the activities of the Parks and
Recreation Commission. (Policies G-2, G-5, Program G-3)
The Department will continue to supplement City resources and enhance services through the recruitment and
use of volunteers. (Program G-11)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
111
ARTS AND SCIENCES
To instill passion for the arts and sciences in all its forms.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,426,334 3,194,652 3,225,020 3,287,351
Contract Services 570,390 460,319 517,587 495,069
Supplies and Materials 205,782 255,631 254,631 255,631
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 39,178 37,221 37,221 37,221
General Expense 10,385 82,337 85,910 82,587
Rents and Leases 7,264 11,666 11,716 11,666
Allocated Charges 347,118 213,655 213,655 232,244
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,606,451 $4,255,481 $4,345,740 $4,401,769
TOTAL REVENUES $1,436,883 $1,778,218 $1,838,063 $1,778,218
Total Full Time Positions 25.00 23.75 23.75 23.25
Total Temporary Positions 14.49 12.98 12.98 13.16
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of exhibitions at Art Center 332
2. Number of Children's Theatre class, camp, and workshop registrants (SEA)1,436 1,400 1,400
Efficiency:
1. Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days (SEA)8,618 7,500 5,300
2. Youth participants in theatre performances and programs (SEA)555 600 650
Effectiveness:
1. Total Art Center attendance (SEA)- The Art Center is “On the Road” in FY
2012 due to the facility's renovation.60,375 62,822 42,600
2. Attendance at youth theatre performances (SEA)24,983 21,000 21,000
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012112
CUBBERLEY AND HUMAN SERVICES
To promote and sustain a safety net of services to improve the quality of life in the community while enhancing the vitality of
Cubberley as a community center.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,248,657 956,298 965,229 1,115,970
Contract Services 218,578 296,813 314,909 214,264
Supplies and Materials 12,283 42,197 42,197 39,542
General Expense 1,136,128 1,138,125 1,127,429 1,123,329
Allocated Charges 494,693 389,114 389,114 410,497
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,110,339 $2,822,547 $2,838,878 $2,903,602
TOTAL REVENUES $81,949 $112,941 $65,000 $65,000
Total Full Time Positions 12.85 8.35 8.35 9.00
Total Temporary Positions 3.78 4.02 4.02 3.78
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of agencies receiving Human Services grants through HSRAP 13 13 15
2. Number of Cubberley facility rental bookings 1,398 1,350 1,425
Efficiency:
1. Amount of grants to local non-profits (in millions) (SEA)$1.1 $1.1 $1.1
2. Number of Cubberley facility hours rented (SEA)35,268 33,000 33,000
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating senior services good or excellent in citizen survey (SEA)79% 83%83%
2. Total revenue resulting from bookings $927,865 $927,152 $927,152
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
113
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
To protect and interpret the resources and wildlife entrusted to Palo Alto for the enjoyment of future generations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,198,981 2,975,123 2,992,791 3,343,782
Contract Services 786,083 1,039,933 1,023,961 1,025,055
Supplies and Materials 151,081 218,130 218,130 219,130
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 6,852 19,365 19,365 18,365
General Expense 35,107 56,740 58,950 61,618
Rents and Leases 9,495 11,800 11,800 11,800
Allocated Charges 1,644,762 1,669,105 1,669,105 1,607,066
Operating Transfers Out 6,990 6,990 6,990 6,990
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,839,351 $5,997,186 $6,001,092 $6,293,806
TOTAL REVENUES $429,097 $424,141 $429,379 $424,141
Total Full Time Positions 31.10 26.10 26.10 26.65
Total Temporary Positions 4.78 4.06 4.06 4.06
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of visitors at Foothills Park (SEA)149,298 140,000 140,000
2. Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects (SEA)16,655 14,500 14,500
Efficiency:
1. Number of Rangers (SEA)777
2. Number of native plants planted in restoration projects (SEA)11,303 14,000 14,000
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating availability of paths or walking trails good or excellent in
citizen survey (SEA)75% 80%80%
2. Percent rating preservation of natural areas good or excellent in citizen
survey (SEA)78% 82%82%
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012114
RECREATION AND GOLF
To enrich people's lives to create a sense of personal growth, physical challenge and fun.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,243,372 2,263,214 2,272,974 2,324,583
Contract Services 1,380,733 1,918,589 1,903,589 2,242,489
Supplies and Materials 239,911 262,654 277,654 174,401
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 390 21,614 21,614 16,614
General Expense 78,513 82,922 82,922 79,372
Rents and Leases 0 300 300 1,000
Allocated Charges 898,020 1,022,110 1,022,110 797,945
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,840,939 $5,571,403 $5,581,163 $5,636,404
TOTAL REVENUES $5,364,902 $5,207,398 $5,207,398 $5,159,898
Total Full Time Positions 22.60 13.60 13.60 11.90
Total Temporary Positions 28.65 28.02 28.02 27.48
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Enrollment in recreation classes (SEA)12,880 13,000 13,500
2. Number of rounds of golf (SEA)69,791 65,000 67,000
Efficiency:
1. Percentage of enrollment who are residents (SEA)86% 87%88%
2. Golf course operating expenditure (in millions) (SEA)$2.3 $2.3 $2.3
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating recreation programs/classes good or excellent in citizen
survey (SEA)82% 85%90%
2. Percent rating golf course customer service good or excellent in customer
survey 87% 90%90%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
115
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET
BY PROGRAM AREA
FISCAL YEAR FY 2012
Division Program Revenue Expense
CSD ADMINISTRATION $0 $1,467,671
CSD Administration - 1,467,671
ARTS & SCIENCES $1,778,218 $4,401,769
Arts & Sciences Administration - 227,349
Art Center - 1,153,957
446,240 Program Fees
37,990 Facility Rentals
5,144 Supply Sales
Subtotal 489,374
Art in Public Places and Art Commission - 109,279
Arts Facility Operations - 249,693
Children's Theatre 1,166,236
108,074 Ticket Sales
69,000 Travel Reimbursement
153,026 Program Fees
Subtotal 330,100
Community Theatre 206,535
165,100 Program Fees
102,000 Patron Use Fees
3,000 Inter-Department Contribution
Subtotal 270,100
Jr. Museum & Zoo 1,203,065
543,944 Program Fees
50,000 Outside Agencies
Subtotal 593,944
Interpretive 94,700 85,655
CUBBERLEY & HUMAN SERVICES $2,567,500 $2,903,602
Cubberley Center*1,511,572
1,575,348 Property Leases
927,152 Facility Rentals
Subtotal 2,502,500
Human Services 65,000 Outside Agencies 1,392,030
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012116
OPEN SPACE & PARKS $424,141 $6,293,806
Parks 4,451,811
24,000 Santa Clara County Medians
23,900 Community Garden Fees
301,557 PAUSD Field Maintenance
41,659 Inter-Department Contribution
Subtotal 391,116
Open Space 1,841,995
1,000 Citations
13,500 Reservations
10,100 Program Fees
1,425 Facility Rentals
7,000 Inter-Department Reimbursement
Subtotal 33,025
RECREATION & GOLF $5,182,098 $6,332,247
Recreation & Golf Administration - 280,596
Recreation, Classes, Camps, and Activities - 2,155,728
1,785,328 Program Fees
1,500 Donations
Subtotal 1,786,828
Facilities 372,300 Facility Rentals 1,018,450
Special Events 7,800 Entry Fees 90,269
Golf Course**2,787,204
2,857,850 Golf Fees
125,120 Property Leases
32,200 Interest Income
Subtotal 3,015,170
TOTAL $9,951,957 $21,399,095
Notes:
* Property and Facility Rental revenue for Cubberley Community Center is shown in this report as a supplemental information since the
Community Services Department manages its operations.
** Golf Course revenues and expenses include interest income, debt service, and cost plan charges.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET
BY PROGRAM AREA
FISCAL YEAR FY 2012
Division Program Revenue Expense
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
117
HUMAN SERVICE CONTRACTS Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Agency
Requests
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Ongoing One-Time Total
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Sole Source Contractors
Avenidas - Senior Services (1)406,287 450,000 402,224 402,224
PACCC - Child Care Subsidy and Outreach (1)411,607 444,820 407,491 407,491
Second Harvest Food Bank - Operation Brown Bag (1)7,128 -0 0
Sole Source Contractors Subtotal 825,022 894,820 809,715 809,715
HUMAN SERVICES RESOURCE
ALLOCATION PROCESS
Two-Year Contractors
Abilities United (2)40,045 56,000 37,642 37,642
Adolescent Counseling Services 88,445 110,000 87,561 87,561
Community Health Awareness Council 9,500 10,000 8,930 8,930
Community Technology Alliance 12,065 15,000 5,432 5,432
Downtown Streets Team 35,815 55,000 33,666 33,666
Inn Vision - 50,000 8,920 8,920
La Comida - Senior Nutrition 32,300 34,000 30,362 30,362
MayView Health Center - Health Care Food Bank for
low-income 17,100 25,000 16,074 16,074
Momentum for Mental Health (3)25,650 25,650 24,111 24,111
Peninsula Health Care Connection - 63,000 25,000 25,000
Senior Adult Legal Assistance 8,550 9,000 8,037 8,037
Youth Community Service 15,960 16,000 15,002 15,002
Catholic Charities - 151,678 --
Family and Children Services - 46,000 --
Kara - 65,000 --
NOVA Youth Foundation - 40,000 --
United Way Silicon Valley - 13,500 --
Two-Year Contractors Subtotal 285,430 784,828 300,737 300,737
TOTAL $1,110,452 $1,679,648 $1,110,452 $0 $1,110,452
(1) Not part of the Human Services Resource Allocation Process
(2) Name change: from Community Association for Rehabilitation to Abilities United
(3) Name change: from Alliance for Community Care to Momentum for Mental Health
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012118
GOLF COURSE FINANCIAL SUMMARY
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Projected
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Revenues
Tournament fees $2,651 $1,921 $2,337 $3,600
Green Fees 2,073,809 1,958,234 1,879,905 1,924,250
Monthly play cards 161,544 135,848 150,231 170,000
Driving range 365,908 399,773 325,465 390,000
Cart/club rentals 313,224 339,090 296,860 370,000
Proshop lease 29,482 27,389 32,000 32,000
Restaurant lease 43,811 52,680 67,200 67,200
Restaurant Utilities 19,440 28,080 25,920 25,920
Interest Income - Debt Service 32,855 32,200 32,200 32,200
Sale of Golf Course equipment*- - 35,230 -
Total Revenue $3,042,724 $2,975,215 $2,847,348 $3,015,170
Expenditures
Operating Expenses
Salaries 518,627 483,188 180,646 81,808
Benefits 410,728 238,408 90,323 57,395
Miscellaneous
Supplies and Materials 144,037 119,458 75,108 36,600
General Expense 1,618 554 559 1,438
Rents and Leases 0 - 100 1,000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,117 390 100 -
Allocated Charges 580,458 420,719 560,232 360,257
Subtotal 1,656,585 1,262,717 907,068 538,498
Contract Services
Golf Maintenance 0 - 500,000 825,000
Miscellaneous 45,879 37,620 29,708 24,030
Range fees 152,745 142,267 123,677 157,700
Cart rentals 127,835 121,630 118,744 148,000
Club rentals 6,197 5,424 5,253 6,800
Fixed management fees 376,989 350,898 353,333 353,333
Credit card fees 33,000 38,000 38,000 38,000
Subtotal 742,645 695,839 1,168,715 1,552,863
Total Operating Expenses $2,399,230 $1,958,556 $2,075,783 $2,091,361
Income From Operations $643,494 $1,016,659 $771,565 $923,809
Debt Expenses
Debt Service 555,686 560,674 559,539 559,539
Loan payment to General Fund for CIP Projects PG-08001 and PG-07700 94,849 47,684 94,849 94,849
Subtotal 650,535 608,358 654,388 654,388
Cost Plan Charges 318,969 332,155 41,455 41,455
Net Income (Loss)$(326,010) $76,146 $75,722 $227,966
Golf Rounds 72,170 68,500 65,760 68,000
*The maintenance of the Golf Course was contracted out to ValleyCrest in October 2010. Golf course equipment and certain vehicles
were purchased by ValleyCrest. The proceeds on the sale of equipment in the amount of $35,230 is reflected as revenue in the Golf
Course Financial Summary, while the proceeds in the sale of vehicles in the amount of $125,000 is reflected in the Vehicle Replacement
Fund.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 119
Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012120
FIRE CHIEF
Dennis Burns (Interim)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1.0-Deputy Fire Chief Operations
3.0-Battalion Chief
1.0-EMS Coordinator
27.0-Fire Captain
30.0-Fire Apparatus Operator
45.0-Fire Fighter
2.0-Administrative Associate II
FY 2012 Position Totals:121.00 Full-time
5.55 Hourly
ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY MANAGEMENT
1.0-Fire Marshal
3.0-Fire Inspector
2.0-Hazardous Materials Inspector
1.0-Administrative Associate II
TRAINING & PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
1.0-Deputy Fire Chief Support Services
1.0-Office of Emergency Services Coord
1.0-Training Captain
1.0-Administrative Associate II
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 121
Fire
Fire
To protect life, property and the environment from fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through rapid emergency
response, proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, and progressive public safety education for the
community.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the Fire Department will continue to provide high levels of quality service to the City of Palo
Alto and its citizens. The Fire Department will begin addressing the needs and recommendations outlined
in the January 2011 Fire Services Utilization and Resources Study. The recommendations include but are
not limited to: updating data collection and analysis methods, evaluating response time performance,
improving the effectiveness of fire prevention and public education programs, maintaining and enhancing
the current fire-based EMS first response system, establishing specific training goals for each shift, and
assessing to share resources and training opportunities with surrounding agencies.
The Fire Department will continue to provide mandated confined space training and conduct confined
space entry and rescue training exercises. The Fire Department will maintain its educational/safety
commitment to Public Works and Utilities by providing fire extinguisher training, respiratory mask fit
testing and CPR and First Aid certification training. The Department will continue to participate in regional
educational events with other Santa Clara County fire departments, such as the Joint Fire Academy, Live
Fire training, Hazardous Materials, Truck Academy, Wildland and Strike Team deployment training and
exercises, and will explore new opportunities for sharing resources and instruction.
The City is considering reorganizing and relocating Emergency Preparedness functions to the office of the
City Manager or Public Safety Director. Fire personnel will continue to prepare City staff and the community
for major disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery through the Office of Emergency
Services (OES) and the Palo Alto CERT program. Legally mandated training (ICS 100 and 200) will continue
to be provided to City employees and elected officials. Terrorism Awareness (AWR-160) training will be
provided to all emergency first responders, Executive Staff, City Council, and Emergency Standby Council
officials.
In FY 2012, OES plans implementation of two new programs. The cost neutral Teen CERT is a national
program designed to prepare high school students to provide professional, knowledgeable assistance to
classmates, their families and school in the event of a disaster. Gunn High School is scheduled to receive
training in 2012. The Palo Medical Reserve Corp (MRC) will enhance disaster response for the City of Palo
Alto by focusing on the medical aspects and health activities related to disaster planning and response in
the City of Palo Alto and surrounding communities.
The Fire Department will continue to actively recruit and test for entry level firefighters to assure hiring of
the best qualified candidates into the City's diverse workforce. The option of sending current Firefighters to
Paramedic certification training will be explored to address loss of Paramedic personnel through attrition.
In FY 2012, the Department will continue to operate the Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance with non-
firefighter limited hourly employees. The BLS ambulance is available to transport lower level calls
(downgrades), allowing our Paramedic ambulances to be available for more critical patients requiring a
higher level of intervention. The BLS ambulance also provides inter-facility transports and is available for
special events. The program continues to experience growth in service fee revenue as transport service
requests increase.
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012122
The Fire Department has changed the location of the 12-hour medic ambulance to better serve high demand
districts. A full EMS study will be completed in 2012 to assist in thoroughly evaluating options to optimize EMS
operations and services. The addition of one Battalion Chief to manage the EMS operation will be considered.
The Department believes active participation in research is valuable and integral to improving quality of
service to citizens, and in 2012 will be participating in a 12 - Lead Transmission Study with Stanford Hospital to
determine the value of receiving field EKG's with the intent of decreasing false STEMI (heart attack) alerts from
the field.
The Fire Prevention Bureau will continue its focus on efficiency by providing ongoing cross-training, re-
evaluating inspection priorities, and implementing automated data management systems. Efforts to improve
GIS mapping and development of newer methods to gather and use information for the improvement of
emergency response capabilities will be prioritized as implementation of outside consultant recommendations
proceeds.
The department will continue to prioritize increasing public safety through proactive inspections and
improved verification of compliance with Certificate of Occupancy requirements. In addition, efforts to improve
fire protection system performance will be made through verification of compliance with the state-mandated
maintenance testing and fire-extinguishing system upgrade requirements. A full analysis of the Fire Prevention
program is anticipated in FY 2012.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is placing firefighters and company officers on temporary assignments that
prioritize the improvements in public safety and cost recovery described above. These activities provide an
added benefit as staff return to engine company duties with increased fire prevention knowledge, skills, and
abilities. As a result, higher quality fire inspections throughout the Fire Department are anticipated. A more
active Fire Prevention role for all Fire Department personnel was an area of emphasis in the recently completed
Fire Staffing and Resource Study.
Emphasis will continue to be placed on mandated inspections. Previously enhanced plan check target dates
will likely require modifications, due to workload redistribution as a result of the loss of a position in the Fire
Prevention Bureau in FY 2011. Fire plan check contract employees will be on-going.
PROGRAM UPDATE
The Fire Department has accomplished the following program implementations:
• Mobile Data Computers - The Department has completed the implementation of Mobile Data Computers
in each response vehicle. The computers are linked to the CAD system and City GIS maps. The computer
gives a responding unit current incident data and allows responders to view incident status within the
city. The units are linked with GPS based automatic vehicle locators (AVL) which assists in dispatching the
closest available unit or resource to a given incident. AVL will aid in reducing response times and help
prevent accidents between incoming units.
• Emergency Medical Services - The BLS Ambulance Program has continued to provide an improved level
of availability for medical downgrade calls in the Palo Alto/ Stanford communities. The support it provides
to the ALS program results in increased opportunities for ALS ambulance transports and additional
revenue. Non-emergency patients are transported to receiving facilities in a more efficient and timely
manner.
• During FY 2011, indirect contact was made with every elementary school student (grades K - 5) through
the Fire Safety Poster contest. This highly successful program will continue, with Palo Alto firefighters
encouraging student participation.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fire
123
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
City Finances
Comprehensive service, resource and utilization studies have been completed or are in process for Fire, OES
and EMS. These studies will primarily evaluate the effectiveness of and present recommendations to improve
each division. The Fire department will evaluate the recommendations with the additional intent of developing
strategies to minimize fiscal impacts to the City’s overall budget.
Emergency Preparedness
The Office of Emergency Services (OES) will continue to offer Community Emergency Response Training (CERT)
8 times a year to approximately 100 individuals. It will provide legally mandated training (ICS 100 and 200) to
City employees and elected officials. Terrorism Awareness (AWR-160) training will be provided to all emergency
first responders, Executive Staff, City Council, and Emergency Standby Council officials.
The Fire Department will research and evaluate opportunities for the necessary funding to implement the Palo
Medical Reserve Corp (MRC), which will enhance disaster response for the City of Palo Alto by enrolling local
doctors, nurses and health care professionals to assist with medical aspects and health activities related to
disaster planning and response in the City of Palo Alto and surrounding communities.
The Fire Department will plan a prescription burn at Foothills Park in accordance with the Foothills Fire
Management Plan mitigation efforts. This will be conducted with county-wide agencies and CAL FIRE and will
be a training exercise to get fire personnel certified and qualified in wildland fire operations and command
positions.
Environmental Sustainability
The Fire Department will continue to selectively review Environmental Impact Reports and look for other
alternatives to provide guidance to developers and City planning staff for potential impacts of soil and/or
groundwater contamination at sites under development.
The Fire Department's hazardous materials inspection staff will continue to inspect occupancies and review
required facility reports to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local hazardous materials requirements.
The goal of inspecting each high-hazard hazardous materials facility annually will continue. Other facilities
inspections, which will have a three-year cycle, began in FY 2011 and will continue in subsequent years.
New construction and closures of hazardous materials facilities are no longer reviewed or inspected by the
hazardous materials inspectors. Applicants are required to provide, at their expense, a third-party technical
report including plan review, inspection and post-closure report review.
To maintain 100% recovery of anticipated cost for the hazardous materials program, school district properties
and Enterprise fund facilities are being charged permit fees for storage, use and handling of hazardous
materials
Any new Fire Department engines, paramedic ambulances, trucks and rescue vehicles will be equipped with
California enhanced diesel emissions systems, reducing emissions beyond those of current deployed vehicles
as well as incorporating current best practices for environmental protections and efficiencies.
The Fire Department's Greenhouse Gas reduction plan resulted in a greater than 5 percent reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions from the 2005 baseline to the end of 2009. The Department is on schedule to achieve a 15
percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2020. The Department will make every reasonable
effort to promote and achieve energy efficiency in departmental operations moving forward.
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012124
Land Use and Transportation Planning
The Fire Department will continue to consider the effects of street modifications and traffic calming on
emergency vehicle response times.
Community Collaboration for Youth Well-Being
The Fire department will introduce a new Teen CERT program designed to prepare high school students to
provide professional, knowledgeable assistance to classmates, their families and school in the event of a
disaster. Gunn High School is scheduled to receive training in 2012. This is a national program that is cost
neutral. The Department will continue to sponsor programs for bicycle education in public schools, school
classroom visits by fire crews, station tours from pre-school and primary grades. The Department will continue
to sponsor the Fire/Medical Explorer Post which is made up of high school students in the surrounding area
and introduces them to the fields of medicine and firefighting. The Explorers also provide First Aid service for
many local events, such as the Moonlight Run, Chili Cook-Off and others.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Fire Administration 2,297,576 1,432,718 1,568,647 1,507,651 (60,996)
Emergency Response 19,262,604 19,486,314 19,960,296 20,925,859 965,563
Environmental Safety Management 2,527,355 2,556,360 2,645,301 2,778,014 132,713
Training and Personnel 2,618,911 2,560,393 2,652,889 2,737,834 84,945
Records and Information Management 1,026,381 971,702 985,600 997,122 11,522
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $27,732,827 $27,007,487 $27,812,733 $28,946,480 $1,133,747
TOTAL REVENUES $10,625,600 $10,920,063 $11,385,063 $11,898,065 $513,002
INTERNAL REVENUES 314,670 337,913 337,913 337,913 0
EXTERNAL REVENUES 10,310,930 10,582,150 11,047,150 11,560,152 513,002
Comparison of Net Fire and Emergency Medical Svcs.
Expenditures Per Capita: Fiscal Year 2008
$0 $30 $60 $90 $120 $150 $180 $210 $240 $270 $300
San Jose
Sunnyvale
San Mateo
Fremont
PALO ALTO
Milpitas
Redwood City
Berkeley
Mountain View
Santa Clara
Sources: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report, Fiscal Year 07-08 and
Palo Alto City Auditor's Fiscal Year 2010 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fire
125
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 23,426,152 23,294,330 23,963,499 25,153,817
Contract Services 339,485 465,719 646,569 381,811
Supplies and Materials 304,651 378,845 354,095 396,365
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 200,288 244,447 239,247 217,767
General Expense 21,580 41,065 42,666 138,323
Allocated Charges 3,440,671 2,583,081 2,566,657 2,658,397
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $27,732,827 $27,007,487 $27,812,733 $28,946,480
TOTAL REVENUES $10,625,600 $10,920,063 $11,385,063 $11,898,065
Total Full Time Positions 122.69 120.74 120.74 120.74
Total Temporary Positions 3.82 4.40 4.40 5.55
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of fire inspections for fire safety (SEA)1,000 1,000 1,000
2. Total responses to emergency calls (SEA)7,500 7,500 7,500
3. Number of training opportunities through CERT classes 75 75 75
4. Number of bike safety classes conducted 38 38 38
5. Number of fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentation
(SEA)250 250 200
6. Number of fire calls (actual fires) (SEA)240 240 240
7. Number of medical/rescue calls (SEA)4,500 4,500 4,500
8. Number of hazardous conditions calls 165 165 75
9. Total number of hazardous materials inspections (SEA)250 250 150
Efficiency:
1. Average emergency response time for all calls (SEA)6:00 6:00 6:00
2. Number of CERT volunteers recruited and trained 180 180 180
3. Number of residents provided with fire safety, bike safety and disaster
preparedness training 10,500 10,500 10,500
4. Percent of ordinary hazard facilities inspected annually for fire safety 25% 25%25%
5. Number of 3rd and 5th graders trained in bicycle safety 1,600 1,600 1,600
6. Average response time for fire calls (minutes) (SEA)6:00 6:00 6:00
7. Average response time for medical/rescue calls (minutes) (SEA)6:00 6:00 6:00
8. Average response time for hazardous conditions calls (minutes)6:00 6:00 6:00
9. Percent of annual hazardous materials inspections (Underground Storage
Tank Program discontinued)60% 60%60%
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012126
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating fire services good or excellent (SEA)90% 90%90%
2. Percent of residents rating fire prevention and education good or excellent
(SEA)85% 85%85%
3. Percent of ordinary hazard fire safety inspections where facility was found
in compliance or returned to compliance within department standards 95% 95%95%
4. Percent of students trained other than CERT volunteers 95% 85%95%
5. Percent of PANDA volunteers who completed training 98% 98%98%
6. Percent response to fire emergencies within 8 minutes (SEA)90% 90%90%
7. Percent response to emergency medical requests for service within 8
minutes (urban area response versus foothills response) (SEA)90% 90%90%
8. Percent of responses to hazardous conditions emergencies within 8
minutes 90% 90%90%
9. Percent of hazardous materials inspections of state regulated facilities
where facility was found in compliance or returned to compliance within
department standard (Annual Unified Program Inspection Summary
Report)
90% 90%90%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase Stanford Fire Services Revenue 746,002 746,002
Increase Plan Checking Fee 232,000 232,000
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $978,002 $0 $978,002
Adjustments (Note 1)(465,000)(465,000)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $978,002 $(465,000)$513,002
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Backfill Frozen OES Coordinator position (0.48 Hourly FTE) 49,795 49,795
Backfill vacant Deputy Fire Chief - EMT position (0.45 Hourly FTE) 77,688 77,688
Increase in Overtime Salaries 1,247,400 1,247,400
Increase Disability/Workers' Compensation Charges 97,844 97,844
Personnel Benefit Increase (Note 2) 386,765 386,765
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $1,732,009 $127,483 $1,859,492
Salary and Benefits Changes (Note 3) (610,000)(610,000)
Adjustments (Note 1)(59,174)(59,174)
Total Net Salary and Benefits Changes $1,122,009 $68,309 $1,190,318
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fire
127
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
Note 3: Overtime budget for the Fire Department has been around $1 million. This level has not kept pace with
historical overtime activity and with contractual salary increases over the past several years. Trend and seasonal
data analyzed for FY 2007 through FY 2010 showed that the Fire Department needs (annually) an additional
$1.25 million to align the budget with actual costs. This budget increase was phased in over FY 2011 and FY
2012.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Fire Department Budget includes the following resources directed toward implementing the
programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
TRANSPORTATION
The Fire Department continues to consider the effects of street modifications on emergency vehicles response
time (Program T-34). Slightly increased response times have been noted and are attributed to traffic calming
devices. The Fire Department encourages and conducts extensive educational programs for the safe use of
bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles, including which includes bicycle education programs in our public schools.
(Program T-46)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Fire Department will continue to implement the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan
through its hazardous materials programs. The Department will provide current environmental, hazardous
materials, and fire safety information to the public (Program N-31, N-44, N-46 and N-78) and to local industry.
(Program N-47) The Fire Department continues to meet with neighborhood associations, businesses, and other
City departments providing disaster preparedness education. (Program N-82)
GOVERNANCE
The Fire Department continues to meet and work with neighborhood and civic organizations on emergency
preparedness and security programs. (Program G-10)
Non-Salary
Increase in Fees for State Emergency Medical Technician Certification 4,000 4,000
Increase Direct (Utility) Charges 1,589 1,589
Increase Allocated Charges 73,915 73,915
Total Non-Salary Changes $79,504 $0 $79,504
Adjustments (Note 1)(136,076)(136,076)
Total Non-Salary Changes $79,504 $(136,076)$(56,572)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $1,201,514 $(67,767)$1,133,747
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012128
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
To respond to emergency situations in a coordinated and timely manner, and to maintain personnel and equipment in a state of
readiness to handle emergency operations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 17,413,536 17,493,522 17,985,403 18,895,592
Contract Services 278,496 350,089 352,839 311,901
Supplies and Materials 232,318 273,259 246,009 273,259
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 136,615 143,068 143,068 159,018
General Expense 16,910 23,957 30,558 82,095
Allocated Charges 1,184,729 1,202,419 1,202,419 1,203,994
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $19,262,604 $19,486,314 $19,960,296 $20,925,859
TOTAL REVENUES $2,350,039 $2,278,579 $2,278,579 $2,278,579
Total Full Time Positions 90.95 91.66 91.66 91.66
Total Temporary Positions 3.13 3.11 3.11 3.57
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of fire calls (actual fires) (SEA)240 240 240
2. Number of medical/rescue calls (SEA)4,500 4,500 4,500
3. Number of hazardous conditions calls (SEA)165 165 75
4. Total responses to emergency calls (SEA)7,500 7,500 7,500
Efficiency:
1. Average response time for fire calls (minutes) (SEA)6:00 6:00 6:00
2. Average response time for medical/rescue calls (minutes) (SEA)6:00 6:00 6:00
3. Average response time for hazardous conditions calls (minutes)6:00 6:00 6:00
4. Average emergency response time for all calls 6:00 6:00 6:00
Effectiveness:
1. Percent response to fire emergencies within 8 minutes (SEA)90% 90%90%
2. Percent response to emergency medical requests for service within 8
minutes (urban area response versus Foothills response) (SEA)90% 90%90%
3. Percent of responses to hazardous conditions emergencies within 8
minutes 90% 90%90%
4. Percent rating fire services good or excellent (SEA)90% 90%90%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fire
129
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT
To provide public safety and environmental protection through proactive code development; and to provide preventative measures
through education, engineering, and code enforcement.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,427,943 2,377,845 2,446,486 2,631,209
Contract Services 15,142 53,153 70,953 29,975
Supplies and Materials 7,983 16,009 18,509 33,529
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 46,594 60,175 60,175 17,545
General Expense 2,717 8,272 8,272 24,850
Allocated Charges 26,976 40,906 40,906 40,906
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,527,355 $2,556,360 $2,645,301 $2,778,014
TOTAL REVENUES $1,239,338 $1,191,588 $1,291,588 $1,423,588
Total Full Time Positions 12.51 11.48 11.48 11.48
Total Temporary Positions 0.56 1.29 1.29 1.98
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of ordinary hazard facilities inspected for fire safety (SEA)1,000 1,000 1,000
2. Total number of hazardous materials inspections (SEA)250 150 150
3. Number of plan reviews (SEA-Plan Reviews-includes all projects other than
the counter)900 850 850
4. Number of fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations
(SEA)250 250 250
5. Number of bike safety classes conducted 38 38 38
Efficiency:
1. Percent of ordinary hazard facilities inspected annually for fire safety 25% 25%25%
2. Percent of annual hazardous materials inspections and underground
storage tank facilities inspections (SEA)60% 60%60%
3. Number of building construction projects that were plan checked for fire
safety within 40 days (Building Plan Check Completion Report)340 340 340
4. Number of residents provided with fire safety, bike safety, and disaster
preparedness training 10,500 10,500 10,500
5. Number of students (K-5th) trained in bicycle safety 1,600 1,600 1,600
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012130
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of ordinary hazard fire safety inspections where facility was found
in compliance or returned to compliance within department standard 95% 95%95%
2. Percent of hazardous materials inspections of state regulated facilities
where facility was found in compliance or returned to compliance within
department standard (Annual Unified Program Inspection Summary
Report)
90% 90%90%
3. Percent of new building construction projects that were plan checked for
fire safety within 40 days (Building Plan Check Completion Report)90% 90%90%
4. Percent of residents rating fire prevention and education good or excellent
(SEA Survey)85% 85%85%
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fire
131
TRAINING AND PERSONNEL
To promote professionalism and diversity through comprehensive recruitment, hiring, training and career development; to recruit,
hire, promote, and develop the highest quality work force.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,506,882 2,422,431 2,514,927 2,599,872
Contract Services 43,431 45,425 45,425 24,925
Supplies and Materials 52,380 66,091 66,091 66,091
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 14,595 24,404 24,404 24,404
General Expense 769 2,042 2,042 22,542
Allocated Charges 854 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,618,911 $2,560,393 $2,652,889 $2,737,834
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 12.98 12.30 12.30 12.30
Total Temporary Positions 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of training classes and field exercises conducted annually
pertaining to permitted confined space entry as required by OSHA Title 8
mandates
15 15 15
2. Number of training opportunities through CERT classes 75 75 75
3. Number of City personnel trained in Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
positions 100 100 100
4. Number of training hours per firefighter per month 20 20 20
Efficiency:
1. Percent cost recovery rate from Utilities, Public Works, and Stanford for
annual classes and exercises pertaining to confined space entry as
required by OSHA Title 8 mandates
97% 97%97%
2. Number of PANDA volunteers recruited and trained 180 180 180
3. Percent of City personnel trained in Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
positions 12% 12%12%
4. Percent of fire personnel completing mandated training 90% 90%90%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of personnel completing confined space entry classes and field
exercises as required by OSHA Title 8 mandates 95% 95%95%
2. Percent of PANDA volunteers completing training 98% 98%98%
3. Percent of City personnel completing EOC training 97% 97%97%
4. Average score of fire personnel completing mandated training 98% 98%98%
Fire
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012132
RECORDS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
To develop and maintain essential Fire Department records and information in accordance with applicable State and local laws and
to provide the public with appropriate and timely access to information.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,005,463 929,955 946,053 955,375
Contract Services 730 6,650 6,650 6,650
Supplies and Materials 10,760 22,251 22,251 22,251
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 9 12,846 10,646 12,846
Allocated Charges 9,419000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,026,381 $971,702 $985,600 $997,122
TOTAL REVENUES $127 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 5.80 5.05 5.05 5.05
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of incident reports 8,000 7,500 7,500
2. Number of patient care reports 2,500 2,500 2,500
3. Number of public records requests 100 100 100
Efficiency:
1. Percent of incident reports completed 99% 99%99%
2. Number of patient care reports invoiced within 14 days 2,500 2,500 2,500
3. Number of public information requests processed within 10 days 100 100 100
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of incident reports completed within 30 days 98% 98%98%
2. Percent of gross collections of ambulance transports 50% 50%50%
3. Percent of public information requests processed within 10 days 98% 98%98%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 133
Human Resources Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012134
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
Sandra Blanch (Interim)
1.0-Assistant Director, HR
1.0-Sr. Administrator
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals:16.00 Full-time
0.34 Hourly
EMPLOYEE/LABOR RELATIONS
2.0-Administrator-HR
2.0-HR Assistant
RISK MANAGEMENT/SAFETY
1.0-Administrator-HR
1.0-HR Assistant
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
EMPLOYMENT/EMPLOYEE
DEVELOPMENT
1.0-Administrator-HR
1.0-HR Representative
1.0-HR Assistant
BENEFITS/COMPENSATION
1.0-Administrator-HR
1.0-HR Representative
1.0-HR Assistant
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 135
Human Resources
Human Resources
To recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well-qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the
community we serve, and to provide a high level of support to the City departments.
OVERVIEW
The Human Resources Department provides a wide range of employee services for the City of Palo Alto,
including recruitment, new employee orientation, training, staff development, benefits administration,
employee safety, and labor relations. In addition, the Department provides support services to City
departments related to employee relations, compensation, performance evaluations, job classification, risk
management and organizational development. City departments and employees are the primary
customers for the Human Resources Department and the Department is dedicated to supporting them
with their core missions.
Goals for FY 2012 include:
• Negotiate and implement labor agreements with Service Employees' International Union (SEIU),
Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) Hourly Unit, International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Fire Chief's Association (FCA), Palo Alto Police Manager's Association (PAPMA), and Palo Alto
Police Officer's Association (PAPOA)
• Finalize the compensation and classification study for the Management and Professional group
• Update the Management and Professional group and Limited Hourly compensation plans
• Continue to partner with other City departments to improve City operations
• Work with Information Technology (IT) to offer benefits enrollment on-line when available from
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
• Develop a strategic plan to improve Human Resources business processes and the use of the Human
Resources Information System (HRIS)
• Develop orientation program for newly hired/promoted managers
• Develop & test on-line requisition process using NEOGOV
• Continue phased update of the Merit System rules and regulations and other Human Resources
policies and procedures
PROGRAM UPDATE
During FY 2011, the Human Resource Department performed the following:
Recruitment
• Continued to evaluate restructuring opportunities prior to authorizing recruitments
• Began the implementation of a workforce management software, NEOGOV, to streamline the
recruitment process
• Enhanced the pre-employment background process
• Explored the use of social networking sites for appropriate recruitments including LinkedIn and
Facebook
Employee/Organizational Development & HR Systems
• Enhanced staff class registration system to include training history accessible by supervisors
• Provided on-site customized training to City Staff on safety topics, ethics, and policies and procedures
Human Resources
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012136
• Expanded technical classes taught by staff including National Incident Management System (NIMS), SAP,
and Forklift Certification
• Facilitated training for new Staff Report & Agenda software
Employee and Labor Relations
• Negotiated contract with Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) which resulted in the adoption of
proposed terms
• Negotiated contract with Service Employees' International (SEIU) Union Hourly Unit
• Continued negotiations with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and with newly formed
Palo Alto Police Manager's Association (PAPMA)
• Analyzed and responded to petition from the Palo Alto Utility Workers Employee Association
• Petition from the Utility Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) proceeded to
arbitration; pending Spring/Summer 2011 decision
• Continued phased update of the Merit Systems Rules and Regulations
Benefits and Compensation
• Implemented employee medical contribution for Service Employees' International Union (SEIU)
• Conducted benefits fair and financial/retirement presentations
• Completed benefits analysis component for the Management/ Professional Classification Study to
benchmark total compensation
• Distributed proposed total compensation data for the Management/Professional Classification Study to
Executive Leadership Team (ELT) for review and aligned non-benchmarked classifications
Risk Management/Safety/Workers' Compensation
• Successfully resolved the Cal/OSHA appeal involving safety related incident
• Administered the mandatory Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing as required,
resulting in ninety random and follow-up drug and alcohol tests
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In FY 2012, the Human Resources Department will address the City Council's Top Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• Human Resources will focus on effective labor negotiations, seeking changes that will address increasing
employee pension and health costs
Emergency Preparedness
• Participate in any emergency preparedness event exercise
• Assist in the development and execution of a reorganization plan based on Fire operations study
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Human Resources
137
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration/Employee-Org Development and HR Systems 771,036 759,466 751,768 860,982 109,214
Employee/Labor Relations 610,089 800,427 796,757 784,673 (12,084)
Benefits/Compensation 453,873 344,899 377,496 437,304 59,808
Recruitment 462,523 465,363 475,353 462,211 (13,142)
Risk Mgmt/Safety/Worker's Compensation 409,028 447,261 447,442 373,808 (73,634)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,706,549 $2,817,416 $2,848,816 $2,918,978 $70,162
TOTAL REVENUES $1,390,055 $1,175,502 $1,175,502 $1,406,027 $230,525
INTERNAL REVENUES 1,390,055 1,175,502 1,175,502 1,406,027 230,525
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,324,466 2,366,884 2,389,534 2,456,855
Contract Services 167,971 167,071 186,239 167,070
Supplies and Materials 15,344 21,280 21,280 19,280
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,720 3,989 1,989 5,000
General Expense 30,272 27,924 20,947 32,924
Rents and Leases 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000
Allocated Charges 123,776 187,268 185,827 194,849
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,706,549 $2,817,416 $2,848,816 $2,918,978
TOTAL REVENUES $1,390,055 $1,175,502 $1,175,502 $1,406,027
Total Full Time Positions 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
Total Temporary Positions 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
FY 2004-05
FY 2005-06
FY 2006-07
FY 2007-08
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-10
Workers' Compensation Incurred Cost (in $000's)
Human Resources
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012138
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of training hours 3,429 3,000 2,600
2. Number of new hires processed 126 145 120
3. Number of grievances filed 21 15 20
4. Number of labor agreements negotiated 236
5. Number of Workers' Compensation Claims 112 115 120
Efficiency:
1. Number of employees who completed a training course 575 490 450
2. Number of sick leave hours utilized by new hires 655 300 300
3. Number of grievances to arbitration 110
4. Number of unfair labor practices upheld by Public Employment Relations
Board 000
5. Average cost per Workers' Compensation claim $8,925 $8,700 $8,500
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of classes offered and delivered 95% 94%95%
2. Percentage of first year turnover (SEA)6% 7%5%
3. Cost of settlement payout related to grievances $1,200 $1,326 0
4. Number of labor agreements implemented within 90 days of Council
authorization 236
5. Number of Workers' Compensation claims closed 146 145 142
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase Cost Plan Charges 230,525 230,525
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $230,525 $0 $230,525
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 100,157 100,157
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $100,157 $0 $100,157
Adjustments (Note 1)(32,836)(32,836)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $100,157 $(32,836)$67,321
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Human Resources
139
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The review of quality customer service is included in the current performance appraisal systems. Staff will
emphasize this factor in ongoing appraisal training. (Program C-9)
There currently is no formal Service Award Program. During this fiscal year, staff will research and recommend
suitable employee recognition. (Program C-10)
The current training budget provides for mandatory/safety related training. Budget for customer service
oriented training is not available. (Program C-11)
GOVERNANCE
Funding is not available for customer service training. (Program G-19)
Non-Salary
Reduce Contract Agency Personnel expense (8,115)(8,115)
Reduce Program and Consultants expense (3,000)(3,000)
Reduce Office Equipment expense (3,989)(3,989)
Reduce Relocation expense (2,000)(2,000)
Allocated charge increase 7,581 7,581
Total Non-Salary $7,581 $(17,104)$(9,523)
Adjustments (Note 1)12,364 12,364
NET NON-SALARY CHANGES $7,581 $(4,740)$2,841
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $107,738 $(37,576)$70,162
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Human Resources
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012140
EMPLOYEE/LABOR RELATIONS
To provide a professional level of service to employees related to performance and the work environment; to negotiate, implement,
and maintain labor agreements and collaborative labor relations; and to manage competitive compensation and an up-to-date
classification system in a manner consistent with departmental and organizational goals.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 514,159 702,626 710,468 688,173
Contract Services 73,964 96,701 85,189 96,500
Supplies and Materials 2,553000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 342 0 0 0
General Expense 16,345 1,100 1,100 0
Allocated Charges 2,726000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $610,089 $800,427 $796,757 $784,673
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.85 4.40 4.40 4.10
Total Temporary Positions 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Human Resources
141
BENEFITS/COMPENSATION
To coordinate the recruitment, selection, and training of City employees, utilizing processes compatible with departmental and
organizational objectives and consistent with City policies and state and federal laws.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 400,521 324,199 327,416 416,604
Contract Services 51,654 20,700 50,080 20,700
General Expense 1,698 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $453,873 $344,899 $377,496 $437,304
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.70 2.15 2.15 2.75
Total Temporary Positions 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Human Resources
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012142
RISK MGMT/SAFETY/WORKER'S COMPENSATION
To enhance workplace safety and limit liability by reducing injuries and other losses to the City; and to provide cost effective
employee benefit plans that support the organization’s goals and departments’ core missions.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 382,602 436,141 437,522 364,908
Contract Services 12,741 7,920 6,720 7,920
Supplies and Materials 6,074 980 980 980
General Expense 4,856 0 0 0
Allocated Charges 2,755 2,220 2,220 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $409,028 $447,261 $447,442 $373,808
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 3.05 3.05 3.05 2.40
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 143
Library Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012144
LIBRARY DIRECTOR
Ned Himmel (Interim)
FY 2012 Position Totals:
41.25 Full-time
12.49 Hourly
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY
1.0-Library Specialist
1.0-Library Assistant
COLLEGE TERRACE LIBRARY
1.0-Library Associate
0.5-Library Assistant
MAIN LIBRARY
2.0-Library Services Manager
1.0-Coordinator, Library Program
2.5-Senior Librarian
1.0-Librarian
2.0-Library Specialist
2.0-Library Assistant
MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY
1.0-Library Services Manager
2.5-Senior Librarian
1.0-Librarian
1.0-Library Associate
2.0-Library Specialist
1.0-Library Assistant
CHILDREN’S LIBRARY
1.0-Library Services Manager
1.0-Senior Librarian
1.0-Librarian
2.0-Library Specialist
1.0-Library Assistant
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Business Analyst
1.0-Administrative Assistant
1.0-Management Assistant
COLLECTION & TECHNICAL
SERVICES
1.75-Senior Librarian
1.0-Librarian
2.0-Library Associate
1.0-Library Specialist
Library Department
Organizational Chart
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DIVISION HEAD
1.0-Collection & Technical Services
PUBLIC SERVICES
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 145
Library
Library
To enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information, and enjoyment.
OVERVIEW
Work on the Measure N building projects was a major focus in FY 2011 and will continue to remain a central
activity through FY 2012.
Downtown Library will reopen in early FY 2012 after a yearlong renovation with an expanded and refreshed
collection with funding support from the Friends of the Library. Downtown Library will also have enhanced
and expanded technology capabilities including electronic whiteboards, an overhead projector, and
additional public computers, loaner laptops, wireless access points and civic broadcasting capabilities.
Construction of Mitchell Park Library will continue through FY 2012. Library staff will work with the project
team to finalize the selection of furnishings and equipment for the new facility. At the same time, Library
staff will also support the final design development of the plans for the Temporary Main Library and the
renovation of Main Library, which is scheduled to close when Mitchell Park Library reopens in Summer
2012.
In FY 2012 the Department will continue to implement its radio frequency identification (RFID) project for
inventory control of the library collection. Placing RFID tags in the entire library collection will be
completed in FY 2012 to coincide with the reopening of Mitchell Park Library, which will also open with the
first automated materials handling (AMH) system to be installed at the three busiest branches. RFID-based
technology and AMH systems will reduce staff time spent on routine tasks associated with the check-in of
returned library materials.
In FY 2012 staff will begin work on another major recommendation of the 2009-13 Technology Plan which
is to replace the Library's Integrated Library System (ILS), a system that tracks acquisition, cataloging and
circulation. Staff will begin to survey the market and conduct preliminary research, and write a request for
proposal for a replacement ILS to be implemented in FY 2013. Staff will investigate cost-effective ways to
add enhancements to the web catalog through third party products as funds and staff resources allow.
In FY 2012, the Library will continue to provide volunteer-supported programming, such as bilingual
storytimes in Spanish, Hindi, and Chinese, developed in FY 2011 in response to requests from the
community. As building projects progress and libraries reopen with dedicated programming spaces,
programs and services will continue to increase to meet community needs. With financial support from the
Friends of Palo Alto Library, a primary focus for programming will target children, teens, parents, and
families. Collaboration between the Library, other City departments, and community organizations will be
expanded in response to City Council's Priority on Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being.
Programming for adults and seniors will also increase, as the Department explores ways to provide
intergenerational programming.
In FY 2012 the Department's budget for library collections will be funded at the same level as in FY 2011,
which is an 18% reduction from FY 2010 levels. The development of the collection will continue to follow
trends in publishing and popular demand. The digitized collections will be expanded. The Library extends
access to information beyond its own collection by participating in LINK+, a cooperative borrowing
program that enables customers to borrow books from more than 50 academic and public libraries. In FY
2012 staffing in the Collection & Technical Services Division will be reduced and reallocated to the Public
Services Division as Technical Services processes are reduced.
Library
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012146
PROGRAM UPDATE
Facilities
• The historic College Terrace Library reopened in November 2010 following a major infrastructure
renovation. Improvements included seismic bracing, air conditioning, a new roof, improved lighting and
accessibility, and new paint and carpet. The yearlong project was funded by the City's infrastructure
reserve. The Friends of Palo Alto Library provided funding for some new interior furnishing and collection
improvements.
• Downtown Library closed for construction in April 2010 for a yearlong renovation. Plans for the bond-
funded project were finalized by project teams of Library staff and other City staff with Group 4
Architecture and incorporated input from the community. Downtown Library will reopen in July 2011.
• A groundbreaking ceremony was held in June 2010 for the new bond-funded Mitchell Park Library &
Community Center, and construction began in September. Recommendations for interior and exterior
finishes, including signage and flooring, were developed and finalized based on input from community
members. The new facility is scheduled to open in Summer 2012.
• The Cubberley Community Center Auditorium opened to the public in June 2010 as a temporary library
facility in south Palo Alto during the two-year closure of the Mitchell Park Library.
• Building plans were finalized for the bond-funded renovation of the Main Library. Recommendations for
the use of library spaces and shelving capacity were developed and refined after receiving input from the
Library Advisory Commission and the community. Yearlong construction of the Main Library will
commence in Winter 2012.
• City Council approved establishing a small temporary Main Library facility at the Art Center Auditorium
during the upcoming renovation of the Main Library.
• The Palo Alto Library Foundation began a multi-million dollar campaign to fund furniture, equipment and
technology purchases that cannot be made with the proceeds of the Measure N bond. In September
2010, the Foundation presented the City with a gift to fully fund all required furniture and technology
needs at the Downtown Library.
Library Collections
• In FY 2010 with funding support from the Friends of the Library, electronic resources were expanded to
include a second database package, additional general interest e-books, many with iPod compatibility
and usable by MAC users, and an additional financial database.
• In FY 2010 the book and media collections were enhanced through joint funding by the City and the
Friends of the Library. Due to budget cuts in FY 2011 this funding was reduced. The funding level for FY
2012 remains similar to that of FY 2011.
• The Chinese and Russian language collections were increased.
• In FY 2010 periodical subscriptions were reduced by 20% due to budget reductions. In response to
changing use patterns and the need to recover storage space for collections and other items while
libraries undergo construction, the majority of the archived periodical collection at the Main Library was
permanently removed from the collection in FY 2010.
• The College Terrace Library was reopened with a refreshed collection that was supported by the Friends
of the Palo Alto Library.
• Watt meters provided by the Utilities Department were added to the collection. The easy-to-use meters
allow the user to measure the electricity consumed by each household appliance, both when in use and
idle.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Library
147
Technology
• Library staff worked with Group 4 Architecture and other City staff to review and finalize plans for
technology enhancements for the bond-funded Downtown Library and Mitchell Park Library renovation
projects. Technology enhancements for the public at these facilities will include electronic whiteboards
(smartboards), overhead projectors, additional public computers, loaner laptops, wireless access points,
civic broadcast capabilities, and self-checkout stations.
• Staff selected a vendor to provide radio frequency identification (RFID) tags for inventory control as well
as conversion stations, readers and other equipment needed to tag the Library's collection. The
Downtown collection was tagged prior to the library reopening. The vendor will also provide security
gates for Downtown, Mitchell Park and Main libraries when they reopen following renovation.
• Staff selected a vendor to install automated material handling systems at the three busiest branches.
System capabilities and design were finalized for each location.
• Staff evaluated the cost and benefit of the two-year pilot project in the LINK+ system and made a
recommendation to City Council to continue participation in the program. The Council funded the
project for another two years to end in March 2013.
• The Library launched its new mobile catalog. Mobile device users can now search the catalog, place holds,
check their accounts, renew items, and browse library event listings. The mobile catalog works with
Android, BlackBerry, iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and any mobile phone with a web browser.
• The Library contracted with a Collection Agency in order to improve its recovery rate of outstanding fines,
fees and overdue materials. The Library purchased the Debt Collect Module for its Integrated Library
System (ILS) in order to integrate customer account information from the ILS with the Collection Agency's
software.
Programs
• For the second year in a row, the Library was rated one of America's Star Libraries by the Library Journal
Index of Public Library Service. The rating system was based on how customers use public libraries: visits
to the library, items checked out, attendance at library programs, and public internet computer use.
• The Library participated in “Snapshot: One Day in the Life of California Libraries,” an event developed by
the California Library Association to demonstrate the importance of academic, public, school, special
libraries and library systems to their communities.
• The Library, in partnership with Stanford University, successfully developed and presented a grant-funded
series of programs entitled “Feed Your Head: Nourish Your Boomer Brain at the Library.”
• The Library hosted a “Technology Petting Zoo,” a program that introduced the public to over 20 new
technology devices by allowing participants to test the devices hands-on and see how they work.
• For the fifth consecutive year, the Library offered, with financial support from the Friends of Palo Alto
Library, a community-wide reading program featuring a series of events. The programs attracted
hundreds of participants who read the book and attended cultural events including a presentation by the
book's author.
• With funding support from the Friends of Palo Alto Library, the Library presented two Author Series of
programs for adults: A Spring Series featuring four noted Bay Area authors and a Fall Series featuring two
noted Bay Area authors.
• The Library developed and presented a well-attended practical series of five programs for adults entitled
“Help for Job Seekers” in which librarians demonstrated how to use social network sites, online library
resources and government internet sites to successfully research and apply for jobs.
Library
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012148
• Two years in a row, the Library presented a series of programs for parents and teens on how to
successfully apply to college.
• The Library developed and presented a program for parents entitled “How to Help Your Child Succeed in
School Using Library Tools,” in which librarians demonstrated resources for elementary, middle and high
school students available through the Library's web site that can be used at home for assignments and
projects.
• Two years in a row, the Library developed and offered a teen writing workshop presented by a well-
known local author of books for children and teens
• Two years in a row, the Library developed and presented a program entitled “Summer Employment &
Volunteer Workshop for Teens” featuring speakers from other City departments.
• The Library presented its Third Annual Writing Contest for children in grades 2-5, and its Second Annual
Writing Contest for teens in grades 6-12.
• For the second year, the Library collaborated with the Community Services Department to plan and
present a Day of the Dead Celebration.
• For the second year, the Library created a promotional DVD for distribution to schools in order to promote
its summer reading program.
• The Library began presenting bilingual storytimes in Spanish, Hindi, and Chinese.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Library Department will support the implementation of the City Council's priorities as
follows:
City Finances
• Continue partnerships with the Library Foundation and Friends of the Library to raise funds in support of
library programs, services, and facilities beyond the limits of public funds
• Seek new partnerships and grant opportunities in support of service priorities and innovations
• Continue use of collection agency services to reduce the number of uncollected library accounts
Emergency Preparedness
• Participate in the City's plans to ensure appropriate disaster response to occupants of public facilities
Environmental Sustainability
• Continue to work with the Friends of the Library in support of their book sales which support the reuse
and recycling of items removed from library collections
• Continue to establish and meet departmental goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Ensure that new library buildings are energy-efficient and achieve, at the minimum, LEED-certification
wherever possible
Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being
• Collaborate with other City departments and PAUSD to provide programs that meet the needs of youth in
the community
• Develop programs that enhance selected elements of the Developmental Assets model of healthy
development for youth, particularly those identified as High Expectations, Creative Activities, Reading for
Pleasure, and Self-Esteem
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Library
149
• Participate in Project Safety Net to help the City develop and implement a community-based mental
health plan for overall youth well-being in Palo Alto
• Involve teenagers in the development of library services and programs as members of the Library's Teen
Advisory Board
• Engage teenagers in the design and use of the new Mitchell Park Library's Teen Room
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Library Services Administration 633,625 1,090,062 1,087,174 1,145,594 58,420
Collection and Technical Services 1,761,682 1,596,056 1,622,650 1,676,519 53,869
Public Services 3,992,448 3,923,164 3,964,814 4,121,701 156,887
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,387,755 $6,609,282 $6,674,638 $6,943,814 $269,176
TOTAL REVENUES $330,424 $271,128 $293,501 $242,250 $(51,251)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 330,424 271,128 293,501 242,250 (51,251)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Items Circulated
Sunnyvale
Berkeley
Burlingame
Mountain View
Redwood City
Menlo Park
Santa Clara
PALO ALTO
FY 2010 Library Circulation per Capita
Library
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012150
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 4,973,736 4,864,339 4,887,069 5,155,507
Contract Services 114,288 132,890 159,790 138,440
Supplies and Materials 752,764 605,916 621,489 611,606
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,404 24,137 29,837 16,192
General Expense 28,914 21,325 22,525 29,530
Rents and Leases 30,090 27,115 25,115 3,500
Allocated Charges 485,559 933,560 928,813 989,039
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,387,755 $6,609,282 $6,674,638 $6,943,814
TOTAL REVENUES $330,424 $271,128 $293,501 $242,250
Total Full Time Positions 42.25 41.25 41.25 41.25
Total Temporary Positions 11.70 10.41 10.41 12.49
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Percent of citizens who have used libraries or their services more than 12
times during last year (SEA)31% 30%32%
Efficiency:
1. Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders (SEA)60% 61%62%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of citizens rating quality of public library services good or
excellent (SEA)82% 80%85%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Remove revenue from Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL) (Note 4) (26,000)(26,000)
New revenue from FOPAL (Note 4) 2,500 2,500
Decrease revenues to reflect historical trend (5,378)(5,378)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(28,878) $0 $(28,878)
Adjustments (Note1)(22,373)(22,373)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(28,878) $(22,373)$(51,251)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Library
151
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contributions.
Note 3: Allocated charges are increasing mainly due to Information Technology costs.
Note 4: In previous years, the Library Department leased a portable building for the Friends of the Palo Alto
Library (FOPAL) for book sale. The Library Department arranged to have FOPAL lease it directly. Accordingly, the
revenue and contract services of $26,000 and $23,615, respectively are removed from the base budget. In
addition, FOPAL pledged $2,500 to reimburse the Library for program supplies and materials.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Freeze 1.0 FTE Librarian (Note 5) (97,269)(97,269)
Add 0.5 FTE Hourly Librarian (Note 5) 32,510 32,510
Add 3.10 FTE Hourly for the Downtown Library (Note 6) 142,181 142,181
Eliminate 0.54 FTE Hourly due to efficiency identified in streamlining process
at the Collection and Technical Services Division and elimination of inter-
library loan services
(26,053)(26,053)
Increase hourly salaries to reflect current salary rate 6,383 6,383
Eliminate overtime for Library Managers (4,000)(4,000)
Increase in personnel benefit costs (Note 2) 189,686 189,686
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $308,197 $(64,759)$243,438
Adjustments (Note1)25,000 25,000
Total Net Salary and Benefits Changes $308,197 $(39,759)$268,438
Non-Salary
Discontinue portable lease (Note 4) (23,615)(23,615)
Increase contract services for Link+ program 10,000 10,000
Increase materials and supplies for staff program funded by FOPAL (Note 4) 2,500 2,500
Reduce contract services for binding damaged books (1,000)(1,000)
Increase in allocated charges (Note 3) 60,225 60,225
Total Non-Salary Changes $38,110 $10,000 $48,110
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $346,307 $(29,759)$316,548
Adjustments (Note1)(47,372)(47,372)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $346,307 $(77,131)$269,176
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Library
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012152
Note 5: The 1.0 FTE Librarian identified is designated for the Main Library. While the Main Library will undergo a
year long renovation in FY 2013, a temporary library will be provided with minimal services. The Librarian
position will be staffed by a 0.5 FTE hourly employee until Main Library reopens in FY 2014 and the position is
reinstated.
Note 6: The Downtown Library will reopen in FY 2012, and the budget for the hourly salaries is reinstated.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
Service Level Increases
• Staffing that was eliminated in FY 2010 due to reduced service hours during building renovation will be
reinstated with the reopening of the Downtown Library in July 2011
• The LINK+ cooperative book lending service among member libraries will be continued through March
2013. This program is provided through joint funding from the Friends of the Library and the City
• The number of items added to the collection will increase due to the successful fundraising campaign by
the Palo Alto Library Foundation for the Measure N building projects
Service Level Decreases
• A frozen librarian position will result in reduced reference services
• The inter-library loan service will no longer be offered
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the Library Department will implement elements of the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Provide the public with access to the renovated Downtown Library’s new community and meeting rooms.
(Policy L-15)
TRANSPORTATION
Continue to implement increased access to electronic resources and information and to library services
through enhancements to its website and online catalog and by expanding the collection of e-books and
databases. (Program T-10)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Continue cooperative partnerships with the Palo Alto School District to provide quality library service to the
youth in the community. (Programs C-1, C-5)
Conduct periodic customer evaluations of library programs and services. (Program C-10)
Continue to provide quality programs for children and teens. (Policy C-17)
Collaborate with the Public Works and Community Service departments to complete the design of the library
bond measure facilities. (Policies C-22, C-27)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Library
153
Collaborate with the Public Works Department to complete the renovation of the Downtown Library. (Policy C-
24)
Continue to include customer service as a performance review criteria for public services staff. (Program C-9)
GOVERNANCE
Continue to provide staff assistance to the City's Library Advisory Commission and provide support for its goals.
(Policy G-2)
Expand the use of electronic newsletters to keep the community informed about library events and services.
(Policy G-3)
Support the activities of the Library Bond Stakeholders Committee through the design process for the new
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the renovated Downtown and Main libraries. (Policy G-6)
Continue to provide opportunities for volunteer assistance to supplement library resources and enhance
services. (Program G-11)
Provide opportunities in the library facilities and through the Library's website to inform the community about
the activities of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library and the Palo Alto Library Foundation. (Program C-12)
Library
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012154
COLLECTION AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
To acquire and develop quality collections, manage databases, and provide technology that enhances the community’s access to
library resources.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 985,310 990,530 1,001,451 1,072,493
Contract Services 48,754 41,500 41,600 39,700
Supplies and Materials 727,136 560,926 576,499 560,926
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 314 1,000 1,000 1,000
General Expense 168 2,100 2,100 2,400
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,761,682 $1,596,056 $1,622,650 $1,676,519
TOTAL REVENUES $67,093 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 9.14 8.64 8.64 8.39
Total Temporary Positions 2.01 2.03 2.03 2.28
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of new titles/number of new volumes added to the collection
19,052/
34,569
15,773/
30,773
23,320/
44,820
Efficiency:
1. Number of titles/number of items in the collection per capita 2.90 / 4.56 2.94 / 4.61 3.02 / 4.74
Effectiveness:
1. Percent rating variety of library materials good or excellent (SEA)75% 77%80%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Library
155
PUBLIC SERVICES
To provide access to library materials, information, and learning opportunities through services and programs.
PROGRAM COST DETAIL
Details of Fiscal Year 2012 budget by library location are as follows:
• Main Library - $1,413,792
• Children’s Library - $767,854
• Mitchell Park Library - $1,399,585
• College Terrace Library - $229,375
• Downtown Library - $311,095
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,909,299 3,799,917 3,835,867 4,005,351
Contract Services 47,777 53,900 53,900 53,250
Supplies and Materials 23,727 42,260 42,260 45,450
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,024 19,137 24,837 8,000
General Expense 2,820 4,450 4,450 6,150
Rents and Leases 6,479 3,500 3,500 3,500
Allocated Charges 322 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,992,448 $3,923,164 $3,964,814 $4,121,701
TOTAL REVENUES $201,712 $207,250 $207,250 $216,150
Total Full Time Positions 32.71 32.16 32.16 32.41
Total Temporary Positions 9.56 8.38 8.38 10.21
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of items circulated (SEA)1,624,785 1,422,762 1,589,900
2. Number of hours open annually (SEA)9,904 8,858 10,878
3. Number of library programs (SEA)485 390 468
Efficiency:
1. Percent of first-time circulations checked out at self-service stations 90% 91%91%
2. Number of hours of operation per FTE 184 171 201
3. Number of people attending programs (SEA)35,455 29,259 31,600
Effectiveness:
1. Number of items circulated per capita (SEA)24.8 21.5 23.8
2. Number of library visits per hour 85.9 93.8 80.2
3. Number of attendees per program 73.1 75.0 67.5
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012156
Planning and
Community Environment
1.0-PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR
Curtis Williams
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Chief Planning & Transportation Official
1.0-Admin Associate III
1.0-Planning Arborist
CURRENT PLANNING
1.0-Planning Mgr
1.0-Admin Associate II
2.0-Senior Planner
3.0-Planner
1.0 Planner (Sustainability Coordinator)
1.0-Associate Planner
ADVANCE PLANNING
1.0-Planning Manager
2.0-Admin Associate II
1.0 Senior Planner (Housing)
2.0-Senior Planner
1.0-Planner (CDBG)
1.0-Planner (Historic)
1.0 Planner
TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Chief Transportation Official
1.0-Transportation Engineer
1.0-Associate Transportation Engineer
1.0-Engineering Technician II
0.5-Commute Coordinator
1.0-Project Engineer
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrator
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds:
46.00 Full-time
2.88 Hourly
BUILDING
1.0-Chief Building Official
2.0-Code Enforcement Officer
PLAN CHECK/COUNTER SERVICES
1.0-Asst Building Official
2.0-Plan Check Engineer
2.0-Building Technician
1.5-Admin Associate I
INSPECTION SERVICES
1.0-Inspection Services Supervisor
1.0-Building Inspector Specialist
4.0-Building Inspector
Planning and Community Environment Department
Organizational Chart
158 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1.0-Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 159
Planning and Community Environment
Planning and Community Environment
To provide the Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development,
planning, transportation, housing and environmental policies, and plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a
safe, vital, and attractive community.
OVERVIEW
The Department of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) work program for FY 2012 will be focused
on significant development proposals and major planning efforts.
Advance Planning/Comprehensive Plan
The key focus of the Advance Planning staff for the next year is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Work
items to be completed during FY 2012 for the amendment include the review of existing Comprehensive
Plan policies and the completion of draft concept plans for California Avenue/Fry's and East Meadow Circle/
West Bayshore areas. It is anticipated that preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will begin
in mid-2011. Staff is also expected to complete an update to the City's Housing Element as part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment by mid-2011 that will be forwarded to the state for initial review.
Community outreach and participation for the amendment process will include several citywide
community meetings to discuss community services, transportation, and housing issues.
Advance Planning also administers the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which
is used primarily to support affordable housing renovation and development. The City Council approved a
plan to consolidate the separate CDBG and Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding
review under one process, and staff will work with Community Services on this transition to streamline the
funding review process.
The Advance Planning team will also continue to participate in regional governance issues, working with
ABAG and other outside agencies. Advance Planning staff assists with affordable housing development
projects such as the projects on the Alma Substation site and at 488 West Charleston Road by overseeing
City funding for these projects. Staff is expected to propose a density-bonus ordinance during FY 2012,
consistent with SB 1818, which would affect the requirements for increased residential density and include
incentives to encourage higher densities.
Advance Planning staff will also be establishing a program for historic review of properties in Professorville
that are considered “contributing” to the historic district, as well as overseeing the completion of the Urban
Forest Master Plan in early FY 2012, working with other departments that are responsible for tree
protection.
Development Review
The Planning and Transportation Division continues to lead intensive planning and negotiation efforts
regarding development proposals for the Stanford Medical Center. The Department is expected to
complete the EIR and entitlement review process in FY 2011, with final City Council review occurring in
April 2011.
The Division also reviewed several other significant development projects including City projects related to
the libraries, California Avenue and San Antonio Road improvements, Art Center and Zoo improvements, a
greenhouse at the Baylands, and emergency water wells. The Department will continue to monitor
development of major projects for which planning entitlements were received and approved in 2011 or
before, and are still active through permit extensions. These include the Ming's site hotel, 420 Cambridge
mixed use project, 317/323 University, the Middlefield Keys School renovation, “Treehouse” project at 488
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012160
West Charleston, 801 Alma housing project, the mixed use neighborhood center Planned Community projects
at Alma Plaza and 2180 El Camino Real, the Palo Alto Bowl site hotel and housing project, mixed use building at
265 Lytton, commercial building at 2995 Middlefield, Lockheed Martin at 3251 Hanover, a mosque at 998 San
Antonio, the McClaren/Fisker dealership, a four-home development on Matadero, and several other
commercial projects.
Major entitlement applications under review in FY 2011 included mixed use projects at 195 Page Mill Road,
2065 Birch Street, 4073 El Camino Real, 524 Hamilton Avenue, 385 Sherman Avenue; non-residential projects at
3000 Hanover Street (Hewlett Packard Executive Center), 340 University Avenue (the Apple store), Stanford
Shopping Center store improvements, and the Roth Building addition and renovation; a residential townhomes
project at 559 Lytton Avenue, and Planned Community projects at 4041 El Camino Way (Palo Alto Commons
addition), at 335 Alma (mixed use project replacing the former Shell station), and at the Edgewood Plaza
shopping center. In addition, Division staff process an increasing number of Wireless Communication Facilities
entitlements each year.
Development Center and the Building Division
Building Permit activity in FY 2012 is expected to slightly exceed that of FY 2011 and continues to reflect a
resurgent business climate and real estate market in Palo Alto. The estimated number of issued Building
Permits (3,600) and corresponding construction valuation ($300 million) should approach pre-recession levels.
Significant projects that are anticipated or will continue to be under construction include the Mitchell Park
Library & Community Center, the Eden Housing Corporation affordable housing project at 801 Alma, Apple
Computer's new University Avenue and Stanford Mall retail outlets, Nordstrom's store remodel at Stanford Mall,
the Hoover Pavilion renovations and new parking garage, VMware's corporate campus expansion, Hewlett
Packard's corporate campus modernization and expansion, the ongoing build-out of Tesla Motor's corporate
headquarters, Palo Alto Commons new independent living facility, and new mixed-use buildings in the
downtown at 265 Lytton and 317-323 University.
The Building Division will continue to play an integral role in the development, piloting, and implementation of
strategic organizational and operational reforms at the Development Center (DC) intended to streamline
permit processing, improve service delivery and enhance customer satisfaction. The expected outcomes of this
effort are anticipated to include standardized procedures for the multiple points of entry and customer
handling, early project assistance services, making more services available by appointment, assignment of
Project Managers and designation of single points of contacts for applicants, improved inter-departmental
coordination of development-related services, improved on-line access to information, clear issue resolution
processes, improved technology that will streamline service delivery, improved staff productivity and reduced
waste, establishment of relevant metrics for measuring performance and customer satisfaction, and methods
for soliciting continuous customer feedback about DC services.
The Building Division will also provide critical support for the city's evolving Green Building Program through
enforcement of the state's new Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Additionally, standardized
procedures for plan review, permitting and inspection of electric vehicle charge stations and graywater systems
will be developed.
Lastly, the Building Division will pursue implementation of a Building Occupancy Recovery Program (BORP) for
major employers and owners of large facilities in Palo Alto to expedite the resumption of business activity and
occupancy in undamaged structures after a disaster event. The BORP will be modeled after a similar program in
San Francisco and will support the city's emergency planning and business retention efforts.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
161
Transportation Planning
In FY 2010, Transportation successfully completed and implemented several capital and planning projects
aimed at increasing roadway safety and improving circulation on local streets and on school commute routes.
Work on increasing roadway safety and circulation will continue in FY 2012. For capital projects, the Arastradero
Road - Trial Restriping project was implemented and evaluation will continue through the Fall 2011.
The City also successfully received a grant for the design and construction of the California Avenue - Transit Hub
Corridor improvement project. This project will be undertaken in FY 2012 and will provide a series of
streetscape improvements between El Camino Real and the Park Boulevard Plaza adjacent to the California
Avenue - Caltrain Station. Several traffic calming projects were also implemented, including ones at Channing
Avenue, North California Avenue, and Greer Road. In Transportation Planning efforts, the development of a
new Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan initiated in 2010 should be completed in the Summer 2011. A new Safe Routes
to School program will be launched thanks to a planning grant that was obtained in 2011.
In FY 2011, Transportation focused on completing the Arastradero Road - Trial Restriping Project, completing
the design process for the California Avenue - Transit Hub Corridor Project, completing and beginning the
implementation of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the new Safe Routes to School Programs.
Green Building
The Department continues to implement the City's Green Building Ordinance. In the coming fiscal year, the
department will be enforcing the recently adopted California Green Building Code (CALGreen) for
nonresidential projects and reviewing and enforcing the City's water efficient landscape requirements. The
Department will also be managing a new pilot program for planning entitlements that looks at a project’s
capacity to meet the sustainable neighborhood criteria of LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design in Neighborhood Development). In addition, the Department will be working corroboratively with the
Utilities Department on promoting rebate programs and sharing energy and water saving information for the
first time. Staff members continue to attend educational workshops on various green building topics to
maintain green certifications. Department staff participate in inter-departmental and inter-agency
coordination of green building efforts, such as the City's Climate Protection Plan, Green Team, and the Santa
Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative.
PROGRAM UPDATE
The Planning and Community Environment Department has accomplished the following in new program and
service implementation:
The Department's effort to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan will continue through FY 2012 and includes
several components:
• Concept plans for California Avenue/Fry's and East Meadow Circle/West Bayshore areas
• New Sustainability Chapter
• Revisions to the City's Housing Element
• Review of existing policies and programs
• Development of growth projections through 2020
• Preparation of Environmental Impact Report
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012162
The Department achieved several noteworthy accomplishments at the Development Center this past year.
These include:
• Continuing work on the “Blueprint for a New Development Center” initiative to streamline access to and
delivery of development related services, and to improve customer satisfaction at the Development
Center
• Led the transition to the state's new Building Codes, including adoption of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen) that enhances the city's overall Green Building program
• Implemented various project management measures to expedite the processing of multiple high priority,
time sensitive projects through the plan review and permitting phases
• Standardized and streamlined the permit submittal and inspection requirements for photovoltaic (PV)
projects by implementing appointment based, over-the-counter plan reviews and updated inspection
checklists
• Began the migration to an upgraded version of the Accela permit processing system that will improve
functionality, data management and public access to Building Permit records
• Managed a significant increase in Building Permit activity with creative use of contract and consultant
staff. At mid-year, Building Division revenues were at 85% of budget targets. Applications for plan checks
were up 55% (1,161 vs. 749) from the same period in FY 2010 while the percentage of completed plan
checks was up by more than 32%. Likewise, the number of Building Permits issued increased by 42%
(2,132 vs. 1,501), which was reflected in a more than 62% increase in permit valuations ($152.6M vs.
$93.8M). Overall, Building Division revenues totaled $3.21M, up more than $1.25M from FY 2010, or nearly
64%.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Planning and Community Environment Department will implement some of the City
Council's Top 5 Priorities as follows:
Environmental Sustainability
• Evaluate and develop procedures to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at City facilities and to
facilitate permitting of EV charging stations at commercial and residential sites
• Prepare and present an Urban Forest Master Plan to monitor and manage the City's tree inventory and to
provide for departmental protocols and procedures for tree protection and enhancement
Land Use and Transportation
• Complete a draft Rail Corridor Study, outlining measures to provide for a community land use,
transportation, and urban design vision for the area within the Caltrain corridor
• Complete the entitlement process for the Stanford University Medical Center rehabilitation and
expansion project
• Substantially complete an update of the City Comprehensive Plan, including a Draft Housing Element and
two Area Concept Plans
• Actively participate in and provide input for the preparation of a regional Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SB 375) and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
• Prepare a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update to provide a leadership role in facilitating bike and
pedestrian facilities, programs, and education
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
163
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 584,752 946,334 1,118,452 1,257,479 139,027
Planning and Transportation 5,477,573 5,063,790 5,255,741 5,198,282 (57,459)
Building 2,915,890 3,080,861 3,396,519 3,624,162 227,643
Economic Development 432,120 236,994 216,996 246,753 29,757
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,326,676 $338,968
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191 $737,238
INTERNAL REVENUES 327,102 128,000 271,557 128,000 (143,557)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 5,128,748 4,899,364 5,805,396 6,686,191 880,795
Number of Building Permits Issued
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Palo Alto San Mateo Sunnyvale Milpitas Mountain
View
2008-09
2009-10
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012164
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 6,451,390 6,578,489 6,762,443 6,904,653
Contract Services 1,413,436 1,221,561 1,650,755 1,740,830
Supplies and Materials 25,643 31,165 60,165 35,165
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 8,882 11,300 11,300 10,650
General Expense 356,546 398,859 441,769 507,573
Rents and Leases 301,799 299,222 279,222 317,650
Allocated Charges 791,893 779,776 774,447 802,548
Operating Transfers Out 60,746 7,607 7,607 7,607
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,326,676
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191
Total Full Time Positions 48.85 44.60 44.60 44.10
Total Temporary Positions 1.63 2.37 2.37 2.88
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of building permits issued (SEA)2,847 3,365 3,350
2. Number of building inspections completed (SEA)15,194 16,825 18,500
3. Number of planning applications completed (SEA)241 269 282
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed 828 705 710
5. Number of new code enforcement cases (SEA)680 650 700
6. Number of Palo Alto Shuttle boardings (SEA)137,825 110,185 110,685
7. Average number of City employees participating in the City commute
program each month (SEA)113 100 115
Efficiency:
1. Number of building permits issued (per plan checker/building technician
FTE)527 623 620
2. Number of building inspections (per inspector FTE)2,171 2,404 2,643
3. Number of planning applications completed (per current planner FTE)40 45 47
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed (per current planner FTE)138 117 118
5. Number of code enforcement cases (per code enforcement officer FTE)340 325 350
6. City's cost per Palo Alto Shuttle rider (SEA)$2.65 $1.97 $1.86
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of building inspection requests for permitted work responded to
within one day - target is 90% (SEA)99% 98%98%
2. Average number of weeks to complete planning staff-level applications
(represents 98% of total volume) (SEA)13.7 weeks 13.2 weeks 13.2 weeks
3. Percent of zoning plan checks completed within 4 week target 90% 82%82%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
165
4. Percent of residents surveyed rating the ease of walking in Palo Alto as
“good” or “excellent” (SEA survey)84% n/a n/a
5. Percent of residents surveyed rating the ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto
as “good” or “excellent” (SEA survey)81% n/a n/a
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase special service fee revenue 25,000 25,000
Increase Architect Review Board revenue 31,402 31,402
Increase zoning planning check fee revenue 102,000 102,000
Increase plan checking fee revenue 440,000 440,000
Increase parking permit - construction/maintenance vehicles fee revenue 45,925 45,925
Increase Green Building Program revenue 30,000 30,000
Increase new construction permit fees revenue 925,000 925,000
Increase other permit fee revenue 32,000 32,000
Increase individual review fee revenue 76,000 76,000
Increase technology enhancements revenue 79,000 79,000
Increase locker fee rental revenue 500 500
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $1,786,827 $0 $1,786,827
Adjustments (Note 1) (1,049,589)(1,049,589)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $1,786,827 $(1,049,589)$737,238
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II (95,538)(95,538)
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from City Manager's Office 43,958 43,958
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 377,737 377,737
TOTAL SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $326,157 $0 $326,157
Adjustments (Note 1)(183,947)(183,947)
NET SALARY AND BENEFIT CHANGES $326,157 $(183,947)$142,210
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012166
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions and a
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
A 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II position is being eliminated as part of the support group restructuring
effort. A 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I position is being reallocated to the Development Center to provide
additional support services.
Increasing contract services and staffing for the Development Center in the areas of customer service, plan
checking, inspection, and project management will be critical to implementing the Development Center
Blueprint and will help to reduce customer wait time and improve responsiveness while allowing the
department an opportunity to assess the permanent, longer term needs of this permitting center.
Non-Salary
Eliminate contract expense for South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (30,000)(30,000)
Increase project manager consultant for Development Center 90,000 90,000
Increase customer service consultant for Development Center 50,000 50,000
Increase plan check services consultant for Development Center 75,000 75,000
Increase building inspection service contract for cost recovery projects 65,333 65,333
Increase bankcard service charges for Development Center 36,000 36,000
Increase Development Center additional contracting and staffing for transi-
tion 300,000 300,000
Increase Development Center lease 18,428 18,428
Increase historic consultant for Professorville 15,000 15,000
Allocated Charges increase 52,772 52,772
Total Non-Salary Changes $377,200 $295,333 $672,533
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $703,357 $295,333 $998,690
Adjustments (Note 1)(475,775)(475,775)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $703,357 $(364,389)$338,968
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
167
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The Planning and Community Environment Department Fiscal Year 2012 Budget will implement aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Continue development review and inspection of several major projects, including mixed-use projects at Alma
and Edgewood Plazas, housing and community facilities at 901 San Antonio, multi-family projects on El Camino
Real, East Meadow Drive, East Meadow Circle, West Bayshore Road, and San Antonio Road, and facilities in the
Stanford Research Park. (Goal L-1)
Review development proposals for improvements to Stanford Medical Center. (Policies L-45 and L-26)
Implement updates to the City’s Building Code, including incorporation of green building practices. (Policy L-7)
TRANSPORTATION
Complete Phase II of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan trial. (Goals T-1, T-3, and T-4)
HOUSING
Continue to implement affordable housing development projects on the Alma Substation site between Homer
Avenue and Channing Avenue and on the site at 488 West Charleston Road by providing funding and
assistance and coordinating with other City departments. (Goal H-1)
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Develop methods to assist local businesses and developers to predict and navigate the planning and building
entitlement processes with tools such as pre-development meetings. (Goal B-4)
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012168
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
To provide professional leadership in planning for Palo Alto's future by recommending and effectively implementing land use,
transportation, environmental, housing and community design policies and programs that preserve and improve Palo Alto as a vital
and highly desirable place to live, work, and visit.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,924,910 3,925,416 3,963,963 4,046,108
Contract Services 864,380 768,995 923,724 777,330
Supplies and Materials 18,552 21,516 21,516 21,516
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 7,437 7,000 7,000 6,850
General Expense 204,115 236,788 235,463 242,403
Allocated Charges 397,433 96,468 96,468 96,468
Operating Transfers Out 60,746 7,607 7,607 7,607
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,477,573 $5,063,790 $5,255,741 $5,198,282
TOTAL REVENUES $1,499,784 $1,304,164 $1,468,696 $1,619,491
Total Full Time Positions 29.00 26.25 26.25 26.30
Total Temporary Positions 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.48
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
169
BUILDING
To review construction projects and improvements for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances in a professional and
efficient manner; and to ensure that all subject to the development review process achieve the specified quality and design.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,079,640 2,201,781 2,344,439 2,423,771
Contract Services 299,096 343,666 463,666 546,300
Supplies and Materials 7,091 9,369 38,369 13,369
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,445 4,300 4,300 3,800
General Expense 150,042 154,461 198,461 255,660
Rents and Leases 301,799 299,222 279,222 317,650
Allocated Charges 76,777 68,062 68,062 63,612
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,915,890 $3,080,861 $3,396,519 $3,624,162
TOTAL REVENUES $3,956,066 $3,723,200 $4,608,257 $5,194,700
Total Full Time Positions 17.35 15.80 15.80 15.55
Total Temporary Positions 0.88 1.20 1.20 2.40
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012170
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
To provide information and data, on the local economy and business community, that will assist the City Council in decision-making;
identify initiatives that will increase City revenues and economic health; and facilitate communication and working relationships
within the business community.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 212,168 210,704 210,706 220,463
Contract Services 217,655 18,900 (1,100)18,200
Supplies and Materials 0 280 280 280
General Expense 2,297 7,110 7,110 7,810
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $432,120 $236,994 $216,996 $246,753
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00
Police Department
172 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 POLICE CHIEF
DENNIS BURNS
TECHNICAL SERVICES
1.0-Deputy Director, Technical Serv
1.0 Court Liaison
1.0-Business Analyst
1.0-Crime Analyst
1.0- Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead
1.0-Code Enforcement Officer
1.0- Communications Technician
DISPATCHING SERVICES
1.0-Supervisor, Police Services
4.0-Public Safety Dispatcher, Lead
16.0-Public Safety Dispatcher
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
1.0-Supervisor, Police Services
1.0-Police Records Specialist - Lead
6.0 -Police Records Specialist
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Assistant Chief of Police
1.0-Senior Management Analyst
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds: 157.00 Full-time
4.69 Hourly
FIELD SERVICES
1.0-Police Captain
1.0-Police Agent/Officer
1.0-Administrative Associate II
FIELD SERVICES (PATROL)
3.0-Police Lieutenant
10.0-Police Sergeant
50.0-Police Agent/Officer
TRAFFIC, PARKING, & SPECIAL EVENT
SERVICES
1.0-Police Lieutenant
2.0-Police Sergeant
5.0-Police Agent/Officer
1.0-Supervisor, Police Services
9.0-Community Service Officer
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
1.0- Police Captain
1.0- Administrative Associate II
2.0- Police Sergeant
11.0-Police Agent/Officer
2.0- Property/Evidence Technician
POLICE PERSONNEL SERVICES
1.0-Police Lieutenant
1.0-Police Agent/Officer
1.0-Admin Associate II
1.0-Program Assistant II
ANIMAL SERVICES
1.0-Superintendent, Animal Serv
1.0-Supervisor, Animal Serv
1.0-Veterinarian
4.5-Animal Control Officer
2.0-Animal Service Specialist II
2.0-Veterinarian Technician
0.5-Volunteer Coordinator
Police Department
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 173
Police
Police
To proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the Department will continue to assess its service delivery models and propose modifications to
enhance revenues and/or reduce costs. The Department will evaluate the staffing reorganization
recommendations proposed in the Fire Services Utilization Study, conduct an analysis of potential service
delivery model changes for Animal Services, and begin implementation of a virtual consolidation of
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) services with partnering agencies. In addition, the Department will
evaluate new parking enforcement technologies and citation recovery methods to increase efficiencies
and revenues while reducing work place injuries.
In collaboration with Community Services, the Department will continue to participate in Track Watch, a
program to intervene and prevent teen suicides. Other Department programs include the "Safe Routes to
School Campaign", "Adopt-A-School", "Operation Safe Passage", and "Bike Rodeos", all designed to maximize
efforts to ensure youth safety. Additionally, the Palo Alto Unified School District has agreed to continue
paying half the costs associated with the School Resource Officer (SRO) program and Parenting Project.
The Police Department will continue to partner with the Fire Department and the City Manager's Office to
evaluate emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This year, the City will also conduct a major
emergency preparedness exercise and execute the Foothills Wildland Emergency Plan.
The Department participates in several regional initiatives that improve emergency preparedness. The
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) has built a county-wide microwave network for
secure wireless communications between the Santa Clara County cities and the County. Palo Alto plans to
leverage this system to provide connectivity with Mountain View and Los Altos for other regional projects,
including a joint interagency Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for the three cities. These initiatives
provide enhanced technology and the opportunity to share resources and improve emergency response
capabilities. In addition, this virtual consolidation effort will reduce costs and provide the three agencies
with back-up capabilities for critical systems.
The Department supports and maintains the City-wide radio system, which is a critical component of
emergency preparedness. Several upgrades are anticipated for the coming year including the completion
of the replacement of City Hall roof antennae and the design phase of a project to replace the aging,
seismically vulnerable radio tower on the roof of the Municipal Services Center with a monopole.
Traffic safety and calming will continue to be a high priority, with an emphasis on speed reduction, red light
violations, and bicycle and pedestrian safety around the schools. Through the use of State funds, the
Department will continue participating in various programs designed to reduce the number of victims
killed or injured in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents.
In conjunction with the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP), the Department will continue to promote
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels. These measures include replacing conventional
vehicles with compressed natural gas vehicles where feasible.
The Department will continue its efforts to ensure accountability and increase trust in the community. Staff
will continue to consult with national experts in the field of promoting fair and equitable policing. The
Community Advisory Group will continue to meet to develop trust and create a dialogue on race and police
practices and policies. The Department will continue to work closely with the Independent Police Auditor
to ensure that the Department is in compliance and to determine if any policies need updating or
modification.
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012174
PROGRAM UPDATE
Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being
• Continued the Parenting Project in conjunction with the Palo Alto School District (PAUSD). This 12 week
program assisted families with troubled or at-risk children
• Continued participation in Track Watch, a program to intervene and prevent youth and teen suicides,
utilizing private security services and citizen volunteers at railroad crossings
• Through matching funds from the PAUSD, continued with the School Resource Officer (SRO), a program
to facilitate positive relationships between police, staff, students, and parents
• Participated in "Safe Routes to School Campaign", enforcing child restraints, seatbelts, cell phones, speed,
and "right of way" (crosswalks)
• Participated in programs such as "Adopt-A-School" and "Operation Safe Passage" designed to maximize
pedestrian safety around schools
• Palo Alto traffic officers held "Bike Rodeos" at various Palo Alto Elementary Schools and taught third grade
students bicycle safety
• Palo Alto traffic officers taught juvenile traffic diversion classes for the Santa Clara County Traffic
Community Safety Network. These classes are the department's effort to take an educational approach to
youth enforcement though participatory classes in-lieu of fines
Emergency Disaster Preparedness
• Continued active participation in the Emergency Preparedness Steering and the Emergency
Preparedness Working Groups. These groups develop strategies and objectives to improve cross
departmental response during an emergency
• Police Department Command Staff participated in the California Emergency Management Agency's -
Emergency Management Earthquake Course. The course tests key emergency management principles
and practices through lectures and a series of progressively complex exercises
• Configured and activated the complex technology in the new Mobile Command Vehicle and
demonstrated the vehicle's ability to serve as a standalone command center with satellite voice, data and
video communications
• Participated in Urban Shield '10, a region-wide, 50 hour exercise to assess law enforcement's ability to
effectively manage large scale natural disasters and terrorism related incidents. During the exercise, staff
utilized the Mobile Command Vehicle as the command post for all Santa Clara County police and fire
agencies, one of seven command centers throughout the Bay Area Region. The Mobile Command Vehicle
was the only center to operate completely independent of conventional power and communications
infrastructure
• Completed the second phase of the EComm Network, the county-wide digital microwave system that will
connect 19 agencies throughout Santa Clara County to provide a pathway for a variety of critical
applications and systems. It is anticipated that the Tri-City CAD system, radio traffic and other public
safety applications will utilize this network in the coming year
• Completed the detailed design of the joint agency regionalized Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) portion
of the "virtual consolidation" project and negotiated contract terms with the vendor who will assist with
implementation. This project will improve information sharing, especially during an emergency or
disaster, between the 9-1-1 centers in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos
• In conjunction with Mountain View and Los Altos, secured grant funding and Federal Communications
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
175
Commission (FCC) licensing for the initial phase of a Tri-City radio channel. This project will compliment
the "virtual consolidation" initiative and provide a common radio channel for the three police
departments
• Completed the migration of the Community Alerting and Notification System (CANS) to the County
sponsored AlertSCC system. This migration provides access to the 9-1-1 database, enhances privacy
protection for Palo Alto subscribers and saves the City $125,000 in maintenance costs over the next two
years
• Installed Mobile Data Computers with Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) and Geographical Information
System (GIS)capabilities in all first line Fire apparatus and the Stanford Deputies’ patrol Vehicles. This
provides improved situational awareness for supervisors and better resource deployment of Police and
Fire assets, particularly in the event of a major incident
• Participated in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), a recently formed JPA at the
Working Committee level providing guidance and direction on regional radio and technology projects for
Santa Clara County
Environmental Sustainability
• In accordance with the Climate Protection Plan (CPP), the Department began to evaluate and implement
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels, including electronic in-field reporting, conversion of
warrant abstracts to an electronic database that reduces paper usage, planned replacement of vehicles
with compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles where appropriate, replacement of flashlights to LED, use of
reflective safety cones in place of flares, and the education of personnel on ways to reduce waste
Traffic Safety and Calming Efforts
• Participated in the Santa Clara County "Avoid the 13" holiday campaign in which Palo Alto officers made
numerous arrests for driving under the influence
• Participated in the month- long "Click it or Ticket" Campaign sponsored by Santa Clara County designed
to ensure vehicle occupant safety through the use safety belts. Officers issued seat belt citations during
the campaign and achieved 98% compliance
• Participated in the State of California Office of Traffic Safety "Specialized Traffic Enforcement Program"
(STEP), a program to reduce deaths and injuries in crashes involving alcohol, speed, red light running,
aggressive driving, and/or failure to utilize seat belts
Crime Suppression/Investigation Efforts
• Received a guilty verdict for a subject who was charged with homicide and arson in downtown Palo Alto
• Arrested subjects in connection with a string of burglaries, a subject responsible for kidnapping, rape and
attempted murder, and a group responsible for dozens of armed robberies
• Implemented CopLink, a regional police records data sharing application that provides enhanced
criminal intelligence and police investigative capabilities
• Implemented a bar-coding system to improve the Department's property and evidence processing and
management while ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody for evidence
• Designed and began replacement of the Department's interview recording system. This system will meet
current recording standards for effective recording, playback, archiving and duplication while
maintaining data integrity
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012176
Civic Engagement
• Continued monthly meetings with the Community Advisory Committee, a diverse group of citizens to
advise the Police Chief on police practices and race relations
• Continued enlisting the Independent Police Auditor to review and make recommendations on
department policy, training, and practices as part of the City's response to community concerns about
bias-biased policing.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
Youth Well Being
• In collaboration with the Community Services, the Department will continue to participate in Track
Watch, a program to intervene and prevent teen suicides.
• The Department will expand the Explorer Scout Program by adding additional scouts and looking for
opportunities to expose the scouts to positive role modeling.
• The Department will continue to participate in the Adopt-A-School Program, Safe Routes to School
Program, Operation Safe Passage, and third grade bicycle rodeos. These programs give children the
opportunity to interact on a daily basis with officers and help them understand the importance and
complexities of traffic and bicycle safety.
Emergency Preparedness
• In partnership with the City Manager's Office, the Police Department will continue to coordinate city-wide
functions of emergency preparedness and response to catastrophic events.
• Consistent with accepted national exercise guidelines, the City will conduct one major emergency
preparedness exercise. City staff will work with community groups to plan and host a full-scale exercise
which will include multiple neighborhood groups and city departments. This year's exercise will evaluate
City and community resources to determine their state of readiness and develop a corrective action plan
to ensure improvement.
• Based on the consultant’s report, the City will execute a reorganization of the Office of Emergency
Services (OES) including organizational structure and staffing. The OES will initiate and execute strategies
and plans that will enhance ongoing citizen volunteer support for education and training of community
members on emergency preparedness.
• Staff will execute the Foothills Wildland Master Plan to mitigate fire hazards in the Foothills and enhance
the safety of residents. Efforts include community education, mitigation of identified hazards, ensuring
the viability of evacuation routes, and training of personnel.
• The Police Department will participate in the regional Urban Shield exercise this year to enhance regional
public safety response to emergencies. The Department will build on the successful deployment of the
Mobile Command Vehicle during last year's exercise by testing additional capabilities, including the
ability to support an alternate EOC and serve as a back-up emergency dispatch center.
• The Department will continue to participate in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority
(SVRIA), a JPA that oversees planning and implementation of regional public safety communications
efforts including the EComm countywide microwave network, the CopLink records-sharing application
and the development of a CAD- to-CAD interoperability application.
• Palo Alto, Los Altos and Mountain View will purchase and implement a combined Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) system, the cornerstone of a "virtual consolidation" effort to combine the three cities’
public safety technology on a common platform. This project will increase efficiency, reduce technology
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
177
and personnel costs, and provide redundancy (i.e. back up) for critical systems. A combined 9-1-1 phone
system and a tri-city radio frequency (NORCOM) are also in development as part of this strategy.
• The Police Department maintains and upgrades the City's existing radio infrastructure, a critical
component of emergency preparedness and day-to-day operations. Completion of the antenna
replacement project, complying with FCC mandated radio narrow-banding requirements, and
completing the design phase for a monopole replacement for the aging MSC radio tower are among the
projects planned for this year.
Environmental Sustainability
• In conjunction with the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP), the Department will continue to promote
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 64,497 529,822 514,313 569,947 55,634
Field Services 13,097,407 13,889,207 14,113,607 13,856,771 (256,836)
Technical Services 6,598,771 6,864,917 6,972,276 7,245,659 273,383
Investigations and Crime Prevention Services 3,359,321 3,572,702 3,628,404 3,754,261 125,857
Traffic Services 1,977,552 1,770,295 1,766,995 2,512,139 745,144
Police Personnel Selection 1,007,656 1,039,874 1,050,171 1,026,192 (23,979)
Animal Services 1,673,599 1,684,988 1,701,431 1,769,833 68,402
Parking Services 1,061,722 1,226,796 1,193,806 1,132,922 (60,884)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,840,525 $30,578,601 $30,941,003 $31,867,724 $926,721
TOTAL REVENUES $4,861,991 $4,827,271 $4,633,220 $4,691,129 $57,909
INTERNAL REVENUES 526,624 602,000 514,500 427,000 (87,500)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 4,335,367 4,225,271 4,118,720 4,264,129 145,409
2009
FBI Violent Crime Index Per 1,000 Residents
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Milpitas
Palo Alto
Redwood City
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
East Palo Alto
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012178
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 24,778,197 25,323,858 25,674,661 26,599,316
Contract Services 1,108,716 1,332,102 1,315,123 1,163,392
Supplies and Materials 411,297 447,130 458,330 429,550
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 41,984 79,500 70,979 77,750
General Expense 260,313 202,915 250,115 274,955
Rents and Leases 2,574 2,950 2,950 2,950
Allocated Charges 2,237,444 3,190,146 3,168,845 3,319,811
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,840,525 $30,578,601 $30,941,003 $31,867,724
TOTAL REVENUES $4,861,991 $4,827,271 $4,633,220 $4,691,129
Total Full Time Positions 161.50 157.00 156.50 156.50
Total Temporary Positions 5.26 4.57 4.57 4.69
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of total calls for service (SEA)55,860 60,000 60,000
Efficiency:
1. Average response time from receipt to on-scene urgent calls (SEA)6:53 10:00 10:00
2. Average response time from receipt to on-scene emergency calls (SEA)4:44 6:00 6:00
3. Average response time from receipt to on-scene non-emergency calls
(SEA)18:32 45:00 45:00
Effectiveness:
1. Percentage of those surveyed rating police services as good or excellent
(SEA)87% 90%90%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Elimination of reimbursement from Utilities for after hours alarm monitoring (175,000)(175,000)
Increased permit, fines and forfeitures revenue 38,858 38,858
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(136,142) $0 $(136,142)
Adjustments (Note 1)194,051 194,051
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(136,142) $194,051 $57,909
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
179
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenue and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry foward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension and healthcare costs and
change in methodology for allocating the retiree medical actuarial required contribution.
Note 3: The Police Department has officers dedicated to handling issues in the downtown area and parking
garages.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Police Budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
TRANSPORTATION
Traffic Services will continue to participate in City committees charged with utilizing enforcement and
educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. (Policy T-47)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Increased salary - reclassification of 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist I to 1.0
FTE Animal Services Specialist II 8,780 8,780
Disability/workers compensation cost increase 168,231 168,231
Personnel benefit cost increase (Note 2) 1,131,450 1,131,450
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $1,308,461 $0 $1,308,461
Adjustments (Note 1)(383,806)(383,806)
Total Net Salary and Benefits Changes $1,308,461 $(383,806)$924,655
Non-Salary
Eliminate funding for contract garage security (Note 3) (160,000)(160,000)
Add funding for Track Watch program 37,000 37,000
Decrease supplies and miscellaneous expenses (25,900)(25,900)
Increase Allocated Charges 129,665 129,665
Total Non-Salary Changes $(19,235) $$(19,235)
Adjustments (Note 1)21,301 21,301
TOTAL NET NON-SALARY CHANGES $(19,235) $21,301 $2,066
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $1,289,226 $(362,505)$926,721
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012180
The Police Department continues to contract for crossing guard services at elementary and middle schools.
(Program T-45)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Police Department continues its efforts in the area of consolidated regional services through the animal
services contracts with Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills; a joint interagency Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) system with Mountain View and Los Altos, the deployment of a regional Mobile Command
Vehicle for large scale disasters. (N-80)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
181
FIELD SERVICES
To provide the public with initial police response to emergency and non-emergency requests for service in a coordinated and timely
manner.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 12,244,798 13,001,057 13,185,857 12,992,019
Contract Services 12,532 10,300 10,300 4,500
Supplies and Materials 159,630 174,880 181,480 160,080
General Expense 84,641 36,400 69,400 41,200
Allocated Charges 595,806 666,570 666,570 658,972
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $13,097,407 $13,889,207 $14,113,607 $13,856,771
TOTAL REVENUES $248,146 $296,900 $317,799 $259,900
Total Full Time Positions 69.10 68.60 68.60 65.30
Total Temporary Positions 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of violent crimes reported (SEA)103 85 85
2. Number of police officer visits to elementary schools 270 238 238
3. Number of emergency calls requiring police response 765 1,000 1,000
4. Number of Part 1 crimes reported (SEA)1,595 2,000 2,000
5. Number of urgent calls requiring police response 6,190 10,000 10,000
Efficiency:
1. Percent of response to emergency calls within 6 minutes from time of
receipt to first officer arrival 78% 90%90%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of residents who feel safe from violent crime (SEA)85% 90%90%
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012182
TECHNICAL SERVICES
To provide quality operational and technical support by delivering reliable dispatching services of Police, Fire, Utilities, Public
Works, Animal Services, and Stanford law enforcement personnel, processing police report information in a timely and efficient
manner, maintenance of critical radio systems and making use of industry-standard technology and practices to leverage
resources and improve the delivery of public safety services to the community.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 4,678,332 4,472,557 4,586,016 4,704,080
Contract Services 260,548 265,717 262,117 270,767
Supplies and Materials 53,080 55,100 55,100 51,800
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 33,045 75,000 68,300 73,250
General Expense 104,524 119,300 123,500 119,300
Allocated Charges 1,469,242 1,877,243 1,877,243 2,026,462
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,598,771 $6,864,917 $6,972,276 $7,245,659
TOTAL REVENUES $1,147,231 $1,218,001 $1,195,271 $1,061,281
Total Full Time Positions 37.50 35.50 35.50 35.50
Total Temporary Positions 1.37 1.54 1.54 1.37
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of emergency calls dispatched 803 1,100 1,100
2. Number of urgent calls dispatched (SEA)6,914 10,000 10,000
Efficiency:
1. Percent of emergency calls dispatched in 60 seconds (SEA)95% 95%95%
2. Percent of urgent calls dispatched in 90 seconds 77% 95%95%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
183
INVESTIGATIONS AND CRIME PREVENTION SERVICES
To apprehend and prosecute offenders and/or resolve investigations in a timely and thorough manner.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,069,341 3,229,708 3,285,510 3,413,239
Contract Services 183,911 211,010 210,910 214,510
Supplies and Materials 17,830 22,490 22,490 19,990
General Expense 20,812 12,050 12,050 11,050
Rents and Leases 2,574 2,950 2,950 2,950
Allocated Charges 64,853 94,494 94,494 92,522
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,359,321 $3,572,702 $3,628,404 $3,754,261
TOTAL REVENUES $202,110 $88,170 $95,480 $95,998
Total Full Time Positions 19.35 17.35 17.35 17.55
Total Temporary Positions 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.18
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of sex registrants monitored in Palo Alto 29 30 30
2. Number of elder abuse cases investigated 82020
3. Number of hours spent by School Resource Officers in middle and high
schools 279 1,000 1,000
4. Number of Part 1 crimes assigned to investigators 1,595 2,000 2,000
Efficiency:
1. Percent of sex registrants checked on annual basis 193% 100%100%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of rape cases assigned to investigators cleared/closed 43% 80%80%
2. Percent of elder abuse cases assigned to investigators cleared/closed 75% 80%80%
3. Percent of homicide cases assigned to investigators cleared/closed 100% 85%85%
4. Percent of robbery cases assigned to investigators cleared/closed 64% 40%40%
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012184
TRAFFIC SERVICES
To minimize injury and property damage by promoting a safe and orderly flow of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,558,122 1,309,743 1,308,264 1,982,212
Contract Services 334,597 352,525 352,525 422,525
Supplies and Materials 1,809 550 550 50
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 4,000 2,179 4,000
General Expense 3,047 2,000 2,000 2,000
Allocated Charges 79,977 101,477 101,477 101,352
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,977,552 $1,770,295 $1,766,995 $2,512,139
TOTAL REVENUES $389,634 $427,500 $427,500 $474,500
Total Full Time Positions 8.95 7.95 7.45 11.20
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 1.44 1.44 1.44
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of traffic citations issued by the department (SEA)7,520 7,000 7,000
2. Number of injury accidents (SEA)368 375 375
3. Number of DUI arrests (SEA)181 250 250
4. Number of bicycle/pedestrian accidents (SEA)81 100 100
Efficiency:
1. Number of traffic citations issued per traffic officer 720 650 650
Effectiveness:
1. Ratio of traffic citations issued and DUI arrests to total injury accidents 21:1 20:1 20:1
2. Percent reduction in collisions in "super block" during school hours 0% 15%15%
3. Percent reduction in bicycle/pedestrian accidents (SEA)24% 10%10%
4. Percent rating traffic services good or excellent (SEA)64% 66%66%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
185
POLICE PERSONNEL SELECTION
To provide professional public safety services through comprehensive hiring, training, and the development of employees and
volunteers.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 740,704 806,402 819,878 792,720
Contract Services 187,817 181,650 178,371 109,400
Supplies and Materials 32,576 29,080 29,180 32,100
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 8,459 0 0 0
General Expense 25,431 14,925 14,925 84,155
Allocated Charges 12,669 7,817 7,817 7,817
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,007,656 $1,039,874 $1,050,171 $1,026,192
TOTAL REVENUES $21,777 $0 $470 $0
Total Full Time Positions 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.50
Total Temporary Positions 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.29
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of total officer training hours 15,426 13,500 13,500
2. Number of police officer and dispatcher positions filled 109 109 109
3. Number of citizen complaints filed (SEA)11 10 10
4. Number of citizen commendations received (SEA)156 150 150
5. Number of worker's compensation claims filed 10 20 20
Efficiency:
1. Number of training hours per officer 183 145 145
2. Percent of candidates for police officer and dispatcher positions given
conditional job offers within 120 days of processing employment
applications
100% 90%90%
3. Percent of use of force, citizen complaint, and canine investigations
completed within 90 days of receipt of information 65% 90%90%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of police officer and dispatcher staffing levels maintained 96% 95%95%
2. Ratio of citizen commendations to complaints filed 14:1 14:1 14:1
3. Percent of worker's compensation claims reduced 52% 10%10%
Police
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012186
ANIMAL SERVICES
To ensure the protection and well-being of animals and people by providing responsive and proactive animal services.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,424,049 1,427,146 1,443,589 1,504,119
Contract Services 32,936 42,200 42,200 41,690
Supplies and Materials 107,293 119,210 119,210 120,710
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 480 500 500 500
General Expense 7,313 9,040 9,040 8,050
Allocated Charges 101,528 86,892 86,892 94,764
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,673,599 $1,684,988 $1,701,431 $1,769,833
TOTAL REVENUES $1,427,775 $1,181,700 $1,181,700 $1,204,450
Total Full Time Positions 12.20 12.20 12.20 12.20
Total Temporary Positions 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of Palo Alto animal service calls (SEA)2,692 3,000 3,000
2. Number of regional animal service calls (SEA)1,602 1,700 1,700
3. Number of animals sheltered (SEA)3,147 3,800 3,800
Efficiency:
1. Percent of animal calls responded to in 45 minutes (SEA)90% 93%93%
2. Percent of regional animal calls responded to in 60 minutes 91% 90%90%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of dogs returned to their owners (SEA)75% 65%65%
2. Percent of cats returned to their owners (SEA)10% 8%8%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Police
187
PARKING SERVICES
To 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 of Palo Alto.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 913,980 908,740 875,750 981,866
Contract Services 96,375 266,000 257,000 100,000
Supplies and Materials 10,714 14,500 14,500 13,500
General Expense 7,152 0 9,000 0
Allocated Charges 33,501 37,556 37,556 37,556
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,061,722 $1,226,796 $1,193,806 $1,132,922
TOTAL REVENUES $1,425,318 $1,615,000 $1,415,000 $1,595,000
Total Full Time Positions 8.65 9.65 9.65 8.90
Total Temporary Positions 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of parking citations issued (SEA)42,591 60,000 60,000
2. Number of abandoned and stored vehicle complaints 762 1,000 1,000
Efficiency:
1. Number of parking citations issued per Parking Enforcement Officer 5,678 7,571 7,571
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of compliance rate for parking time limits in downtown area 97% 95%95%
2. Percent of abandoned and stored vehicle complaints processed in 10
working days 97% 90%90%
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012188
Public Works Department
190 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Mike Sartor (Interim)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
1.0-Assistant Director, Engineering Ser-
vices
1.0-Management Analyst
1.0-Admin Associate III
1.0-Admin Associate I
FIELD SERVICES (SURVEY AND
INSPECTION)
1.0-Superv Inspections/Survey
1.0-Inspector-Field Serv
1.0-Surveyor
1.0-Surveying Asst
CIP PROGRAM (STRUCTURES,
STREETS & SIDEWALKS, STORM
DRAIN)
4.0-Sr Engineer
1.0-Architect/Park Planner
5.0-Project Engineer
4.0-Engineer
1.0-Associate Engineer
2.0-Engineering Tech III
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
1.0-Sr Project Mgr
3.0-Engineering Tech III
1.0-Sr Management Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1.0-Assistant Director, Environmental
Services
1.0-Management Analyst
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
1.0-Water Quality Control Plant Mgr
2.0-Admin Associate II
2.0-Asst Manager WQCP
1.0-Sr Engineer
3.0-Supervisor WQC Operations
6.0-Sr Operator, WQC
17.0-Plant Operator II
1.0-Manager Laboratory Services
1.0-Sr Chemist
3.0-Chemist
2.5-Lab Technician
2.0-Electrician-Lead
3.0-Electrician
1.0-Sr Mechanic
7.0-Maintenance Mechanic
1.0-Senior Technologist
1.0-Project Engineer
TECHNICAL SERVICES
1.0-Watershed Protection Mgr
1.0-Program Assistant I
2.0-Mgr Environmental Ctrl Prgrm
1.0-Program Assistant II
1.0-Environmental Specialist
3.0-Associate Engineer
2.0-Industrial Waste Investigator
1.0-Industrial Waste Inspector
1.0-Engineer Technician III
1.0-Industrial Waste Technician
2.0-Zero Waste Coordinator
1.0-Program Assistant I
SOLID WASTE
1.0-Mgr Solid Waste
1.0-Administrator, Refuse
1.0-Mgr Environmental Controls
1.0-Senior Engineer
1.0-Environmental Specialist
1.0-Supv Public Works
1.0-Coordinator, PW Projects
4.0-Refuse Disposal Attendant
1.0-Heavy Equip Oper-Lead
4.0-Heavy Equip Oper
PUBLIC SERVICES
1.0-Assistant Director, Public Services
1.0- Management Analyst
3.0-Admin Associate II
1.0-Admin Associate III
0.5-Admin Associate I
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE OPER. & REPAIR
1.0-Mgr, Maint. Ops
2.0-Facilities Maint-Lead
6.0-Facilities Mechanic
2.0-Facilities Painter
1.0-Facilities Carpenter
1.0-Electrician
FACILITIES CONTRACT SERVICES & REHAB
PROJECTS
1.0-Supv, Facilities Mgt
2.0-Bldg Svc Person-Lead
1.0-Bldg Service Person
1.0-Project Manager
1.0-Engineering Tech III
FLEET
1.0-Fleet Manager
1.0-Asst Fleet Manager
1.0-Sr Fleet Services Coordinator
2.0-Fleet Services Coordinator
2.0-Equipment Maint Serv Person
7.0-Motor Equipment Mechanic II
1.0-Mobile Service Technician
URBAN FORESTRY
1.0-Managing Arborist
2.0-Project Manager (75 Utl Line Clr)
3.0-Tree Maint Special (1.0 Utl Line Clr)
1.0-Tree Trim/Line Clear-Lead
7.0-Tree Trim/Line Clear
TRAFFIC CONTROL/STREET SWEEPING
1.0-Mgr, Maint. Ops
7.0-Str Sweeper Operator
1.0-Heavy Equip Oper-Lead
1.0-Heavy Equip Operator
2.0-Street Maint Assistant
1.0-Traf Control Maint-Lead
2.0-Traf Control Maint II
2.0-Traf Control Maint I
STORM DRAIN/STREET MAINTENANCE
1.0-Mgr, Maint. Ops
2.0-Heavy Equip Oper-Lead
3.0-Heavy Equip Operator
4.0-Equip Oper
1.0-Cement Finisher-Lead
3.0-Cement Finisher
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012
Position Totals: All Funds
206.00 Full-time
6.75 Hourly
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Organizational Chart
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 191
Public Works
Public Works
To provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto
streets, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings, and other public facilities; to provide appropriate maintenance, replacement, and
utility line clearing of City trees; and to ensure timely support to other City departments and the private development
community in the area of engineering services.
OVERVIEW
Due to numerous vacancies in key positions, in addition to the closing of the landfill, the Public Works
Department took the opportunity to review the department structure. By reducing six divisions to three
divisions and combining workgroups, the department will gain efficiencies in streamlined workflow,
program/project coordination and oversight. This reorganization results in savings of over $300,000
through elimination and reclassification of positions, and means the department will achieve an overall
budget reduction for FY 2012.
The new three-division structure consists of Engineering Services, Public Services, and Environmental
Services. Engineering staff from the Facilities and Operations divisions will now combine with Public Works
Engineering to form an Engineering Services division providing peer support and better coordination for
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Public Services division will include facility, street, tree, storm
drain and City fleet maintenance activities performed by in-house crews or contracted work managed by
in-house staff. The third division, Environmental Services, will comprise the current Regional Water Quality
Control Plant, Refuse workgroup and Environmental Compliance staff, to create one environmentally
focused group leading the City of Palo Alto's many "green" initiatives.
Besides Engineering Services and Public Services in the General Fund, the Public Works Department also
includes three Enterprise Funds - Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater Treatment. The Department is
also responsible for the Vehicle Replacement Fund, an Internal Service Fund, responsible for managing the
City fleet.
In FY 2012, Engineering Services will continue to focus on significant CIP projects and provide key support
to the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). Details of CIP projects may be found in the FY 2012
Proposed Capital Budget.
Beginning in FY 2011, the annual street maintenance capital project has been increased by $2 million, for a
total of approximately $3.5 million, to address the ongoing backlog in the streets program. Staff will
continue to aggressively pursue grant and other funding opportunities to support this program.
With the success of the Library Bond Measure N, design of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
was completed, and construction has begun. Construction on the College Terrace Library was completed in
FY 2011, and the Downtown Library is scheduled to reopen in Summer 2011. Design work on the Main
Library Renovation and Expansion will take place in FY 2012. Construction of the Art Center Upgrades and
Renovations will begin in FY 2012. The continuation of the Civic Center Improvements project will be
managed by Engineering Services.
In FY 2011, the new Scott Meadow, along with a new irrigation system, was completed at Greer Park.
Design of San Antonio Road Improvements Phase II is complete, and construction began in Spring 2011. In
addition, design will begin on Eleanor Pardee Park, and a Master Plan for renovations of Rinconada Park will
be completed.
Public Works
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012192
Engineering and Public Services divisions will continue to support Palo Alto private development activity by
issuing street opening and encroachment permits and certificates of compliance under the Subdivision Map
Act, and supporting the Planning Department with plan review of grading, drainage and public tree issues. The
two divisions will play a key role in the Blueprint for a New Development Center initiative in FY 2012.
The Public Services division maintains and operates City facilities with a commitment to sustainability, energy
efficiency, and "green" maintenance practices. In FY 2012, efforts will continue with the delivery of custodial,
building maintenance, and rehabilitation services to achieve maximum life expectancy of the City's buildings
and building systems. Planned CIP projects in FY 2012 include the MSC-C Parks Maintenance and PWD Trees
area remodel; Foothill Park Interpretive Center, Fire Station 1, and various Cubberley buildings roof
replacements; accessibility upgrades at various locations; and Lot J parking garage structure repairs. In
addition, division staff began a program to test retro-reflectivity of street name and traffic control signs relative
to new federal standards. Staff will be replacing all signs that do not meet the minimum requirements over a
five-year period.
The Urban Forestry section of Public Services worked with a consultant to update the street tree inventory. The
project was funded by a grant from the State of California and was recently completed. The information will be
used in updating the 1983 Street Tree Management Plan. However, this project will not be completed until the
City's Urban Forest Master Plan is completed in Summer 2011. The Managing Arborist is part of the citywide
committee for the Urban Forest Master Plan that will determine a sustainability plan for all trees in the City. In
addition, a new tree website will be launched by Fall 2011 to address the many resident requests for
information related to City trees.
Public Works Enterprise and Internal Service Funds are located in separate sections of this document.
PROGRAM UPDATE
In FY 2011, construction began on the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Downtown
Library. The construction phase of these sites is currently underway with completion scheduled in Summer
2012 and Summer 2011 respectively. Design of the Main Library Expansion and Renovation began in FY 2011
with construction to begin in Fall 2012. Design of the Art Center Improvements is complete; and construction is
scheduled to begin in Summer of 2011.
The Public Works Engineering Private Development section provided review support for the Stanford hospital
project and 265 Lytton, along with numerous housing developments.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
In FY 2012, the Public Works Department will implement the City Council's Top 5 Priorities as follows:
City Finances
• City facilities have aged, and spending to revitalize the facilities has not kept up with the facilities needs.
Many facilities now exceed their design lives, and upgrades are overdue. Staff will work with the Council-
appointed Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to develop recommendations on how to pay for
and schedule the necessary work to refurbish City facilities. The goal is to eliminate the backlog of repair
projects and put the City on a clear path of keeping up with maintenance needs in the future. Like the
environment around it, Palo Alto’s infrastructure must become truly sustainable.
• Continue to pursue grant and outside sources of funding for Capital Improvement Plan projects and
maintenance programs (e.g., rubberized asphalt, rubberized sidewalks, and trees)
• Continue to streamline and coordinate street resurfacing processes to achieve maximum value for
budgetary expenditures
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Public Works
193
• Continue to coordinate with other City departments on project activities to minimize impacts to the
natural life of the City streets
• Review and evaluate opportunities to conserve energy and electricity in City facilities when upgrades are
in process
• Continue to coordinate in-house and contract sidewalk replacement to maximize funding
• Review opportunities to reduce the size of the vehicle fleet by employing new measures to track and
verify equipment utilization (Vehicle Fund- ISF)
Environmental Sustainability
• Continue to evaluate City operations and identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gasses and
increase carbon sequestration by: purchasing greener products, chemicals, construction materials, and
landscape materials; increasing equipment efficiency; designing greener City facilities; purchasing low-
emission vehicles and equipment; and planting trees and shrubs
• Maintain City facilities in optimal and efficient operating condition by providing on-going operations and
maintenance
• Continue to research and evaluate all options for alternative fuel usage and consumption
• Continue implementation of the Zero Waste Operational Plan.
• Set a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification goal for the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center project
• Set a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified goal for the Art Center Renovation
Project
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 841,919 1,268,046 1,264,569 1,321,221 56,652
Streets 2,318,757 2,382,772 2,400,262 2,293,652 (106,610)
Trees 2,257,573 2,373,565 2,360,782 2,223,745 (137,037)
Structures and Grounds 5,530,436 5,599,797 5,625,623 5,540,375 (85,248)
Engineering 1,596,408 1,476,543 1,492,431 1,534,980 42,549
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $12,545,093 $13,100,723 $13,143,667 $12,913,973 $(229,694)
TOTAL REVENUES $2,745,265 $2,716,376 $2,756,826 $2,712,229 $(44,597)
INTERNAL REVENUES 2,358,484 2,376,826 2,376,826 2,372,679 (4,147)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 386,781 339,550 380,000 339,550 (40,450)
Public Works
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012194
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 7,293,494 7,035,261 7,107,917 6,981,718
Contract Services 1,690,680 2,042,740 2,023,000 2,050,280
Supplies and Materials 658,152 855,294 855,994 855,644
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 18,015 5,646 5,646 5,646
General Expense 17,717 33,429 32,469 45,539
Rents and Leases 140,326 170,000 170,000 170,000
Allocated Charges 2,710,135 2,941,779 2,932,067 2,788,572
Operating Transfers Out 16,574 16,574 16,574 16,574
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $12,545,093 $13,100,723 $13,143,667 $12,913,973
TOTAL REVENUES $2,745,265 $2,716,376 $2,756,826 $2,712,229
Total Full Time Positions 63.67 58.57 58.57 55.82
Total Temporary Positions 1.19 0.94 0.94 1.57
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Public Works Capital Improvement Projects ($000's)
Structures & Grounds Streets
Sidewalks Total Budget ($000's)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Public Works
195
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases for the pension component of the
benefits allocation.
Note 3: Allocated charges are decreasing primarily due to decreases in charges from the Refuse Fund.
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Decrease allocated revenue-internal (4,147)(4,147)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(4,147) $0 $(4,147)
Adjustments (Note 1)(40,450)(40,450)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(4,147) $(40,450)$(44,597)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Elimination of 0.6 FTE Superintendent, Public Works Operations (department
restructure)(109,264)(109,264)
Elimination of 0.8 FTE Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects (depart-
ment restructure)(141,954)(141,954)
Elimination of 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate I (department restructure) (87,916)(87,916)
Reclassify 0.8 FTE Supervisor, Facilities Management to Manager, Mainte-
nance Operations (department restructure)12,926 12,926
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 200,001 200,001
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(126,207) $0 $(126,207)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(126,207) $0 $(126,207)
Non-Salary
Increase contract services for maintenance of decorative lights on University
Ave.20,000 20,000
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 3) (143,487)(143,487)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(123,487) $0 $(123,487)
Adjustments (Note 1)20,000 20,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(249,694) $20,000 $(229,694)
Public Works
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012196
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Staff will enhance the street and parks tree maintenance systems through trimming services and containment
of treatable infestations. (Policy L-70)
Staff will provide timely plan review and assistance with construction oversight to the Stanford Medical Center
and related projects and play a key role in the Blueprint for a New Development Center initiative. (Policy L-25)
Public Works Engineering Services will continue to implement park improvements, including design and
construction of Eleanor Pardee and development of a Rinconada Park Master Plan as identified in the Capital
Improvement Program. (Policies C-22, C-24, C-26, C-32 and Program C-19)
TRANSPORTATION
Public Works Engineering will continue to maintain City streets through the annual street maintenance
program. (Policy T-24)
Staff will continue working with the Chamber of Commerce to enhance maintenance in the downtown areas.
(Program T-30)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Canopy, a non-profit advocate for Palo Alto’s community trees, will work with the City on the program to
educate residents about newly planted trees. (Program N-16)
Staff will continue the green building/sustainability policy for new City buildings. (Program N-65)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Staff will continue to maintain sidewalks in areas with high levels of pedestrian use. (Program C-21)
Staff will continue to address the infrastructure backlog through Capital Improvement Program projects as
funding allows. (Program C-24)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Public Works
197
STREETS
To develop and maintain the structural integrity and ride quality of streets to maximize the effective life of the pavement and
traffic control clarity of streets and to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,336,168 1,338,619 1,356,109 1,304,568
Contract Services 22,371 33,510 33,770 53,470
Supplies and Materials 322,896 365,099 365,099 365,099
General Expense 3,170 4,210 3,950 4,250
Allocated Charges 634,152 641,334 641,334 566,265
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,318,757 $2,382,772 $2,400,262 $2,293,652
TOTAL REVENUES $277,233 $278,832 $278,832 $278,832
Total Full Time Positions 13.48 12.38 12.38 11.98
Total Temporary Positions 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.62
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of potholes repaired (SEA)3,149 2,000 3,000
2. Number of signs repaired or replaced 2,250 1,300 1,800
Efficiency:
1. Potholes filled per hour 2.9 1.2 2.1
2. Number of signs repaired or replaced per hour 1.2 1.2 1.2
Effectiveness:
1. Percent potholes repaired within 15 days (SEA)86% 80%80%
2. Number of calls reporting damaged/faded signs 43 50 50
Public Works
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012198
TREES
To manage a sustainable urban forest by selecting appropriate species and providing timely maintenance and replacement of City
trees as well as providing utility line clearing for front and rear easements.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,513,775 1,535,401 1,542,618 1,463,255
Contract Services 312,233 369,095 349,095 369,095
Supplies and Materials 36,007 53,000 53,200 53,000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,003 2,500 2,500 2,500
General Expense 0 200 0 200
Allocated Charges 377,981 396,795 396,795 319,121
Operating Transfers Out 16,574 16,574 16,574 16,574
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,257,573 $2,373,565 $2,360,782 $2,223,745
TOTAL REVENUES $1,812 $67,500 $33,200 $67,500
Total Full Time Positions 14.01 14.01 14.01 12.81
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of all tree related services completed (SEA)6,094 5,200 6,000
2. Number of tree lines cleared 8,288 8,000 8,000
3. Number of trees planted (SEA)201 400 250
Efficiency:
1. Person hours per service 1.9 2.2 2.2
2. Percent of total trees line cleared (SEA)27% 25%25%
Effectiveness:
1. Average number of days to respond to requests 555
2. Number of electrical service disruptions caused by trees (SEA)400
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Public Works
199
STRUCTURES AND GROUNDS
To build, maintain, renovate, and operate City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks, and open space to
achieve maximum life expectancy of the facilities.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,598,607 2,352,021 2,377,847 2,319,761
Contract Services 1,236,677 1,492,178 1,492,178 1,488,178
Supplies and Materials 283,921 409,050 409,050 409,050
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 17,012 3,146 3,146 3,146
General Expense 5,563 7,854 7,854 11,854
Rents and Leases 140,326 170,000 170,000 170,000
Allocated Charges 1,248,330 1,165,548 1,165,548 1,138,386
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,530,436 $5,599,797 $5,625,623 $5,540,375
TOTAL REVENUES $1,006,165 $913,672 $913,672 $882,936
Total Full Time Positions 23.57 20.57 20.57 19.42
Total Temporary Positions 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.46
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Custodial: Total square footage cleaned by Custodial Section 1,219,008 1,219,008 1,219,008
2. Maintenance: Total square footage maintained by Maintenance Section 1,617,101 1,617,101 1,617,101
3. CIP Support: Number of projects assigned in given fiscal year 711 6
Efficiency:
1. Custodial: Cost per square foot for Custodial Services $1.18 $1.16 $1.16
2. Maintenance: Cost per square foot for Maintenance work $1.75 $1.70 $1.70
3. CIP Support: Number of projects bid and awarded in the year budgeted 711 6
Effectiveness:
1. Custodial: Number of customer callbacks for regularly scheduled cleaning 687
2. Maintenance: Percent of repairs completed in 3 weeks 83% 87%90%
3. CIP Support: Percent of projects completed on time 90% 85%85%
Public Works
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012200
ENGINEERING
To construct, renovate, and maintain City-owned infrastructure through the City's Capital Improvement Program; to ensure
safety, comfort, and maximum life expectancy and value of City structures, facilities, and streets; to provide engineering support
to City Departments and private development through the expeditious review and inspection of projects to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations and conformance with approved plans and specifications.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,411,409 1,265,004 1,280,892 1,323,452
Contract Services 117,617 145,257 145,257 137,337
Supplies and Materials 13,405 25,595 25,595 25,945
General Expense 6,714 17,065 17,065 24,635
Allocated Charges 47,263 23,622 23,622 23,611
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,596,408 $1,476,543 $1,492,431 $1,534,980
TOTAL REVENUES $897,310 $822,350 $897,100 $822,350
Total Full Time Positions 9.71 8.71 8.71 8.71
Total Temporary Positions 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Structures and Grounds: Total dollar value of Capital Improvement
Program projects accomplished $7,341,243 $9,195,070 $16,900,000
2. Street Maintenance: Total dollar value of Capital Improvement Program
projects accomplished $3,921,050 $3,753,635 $3,753,635
3. Private Development: Number of plans reviewed 153 350 350
4. Private Development: Number of permits issued 321 250 250
5. Parks & Open Space: Total dollar value of Capital Improvement Program
projects accomplished $3,056,136 $1,140,512 $1,140,512
Efficiency:
1. Structures and Grounds: Total dollar value per FTE $879,191 $950,000 $950,000
2. Street Maintenance: Total dollar value per FTE $1,654,451 $950,000 $950,000
3. Private Development: Number of plans reviewed within four weeks 113 200 200
4. Private Development: Number of permits per FTE 107 77 77
5. Parks & Open Space: Dollar value per FTE $1,111,322 $414,731 $414,731
Effectiveness:
1. Structures and Grounds: Percent of Capital Improvement Program projects
within planned budget 100% 100%100%
2. Street Maintenance: Percent of streets not in need of maintenance (good
or better condition on the Pavement Maintenance Management System)55% 60%66%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Public Works
201
3. Private Development: Revenues received-plan review $56,045 $84,097 $84,097
4. Private Development: Revenues received-permits $189,760 $214,468 $214,468
5. Parks & Open Space: Percentage of Capital Improvement Program projects
within planned budget 100% 100%100%
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012202
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
204 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
ELECTRIC & WGW
OPERATIONS
1.0-Asst Director Utility Operations
1.0-Program Assistant
1.0-Coord Util Safety & Security
1.0-Mgr Electric Operations
1.0-Admin Associate I
2.0-Admin Associate II
5.0-Utilities Supervisor
1.0-Underground Inspector-Lead
6.0-Electrician-Lead
14.0-Electrician
5.0-Elec Asst I
2.0-Elec Undgd Inspec
4.0-Lineper/Cable Spl-Lead
11.0-Lineper/Cable Spl
9.0-Heavy Equip Oper
1.0-Util Comp Tech-Lead
2.0-Util Comp Tech
2.0-Util Locator
5.0-Util Syst Operator
1.0-Mgr Utility Operations WGW
4.0-Coord Utility Proj
5.0-Supv WGW
1.0-Supv Water Trans
2.0-Sr Water Sys Oper
2.0-Cathodic Tech
4.0-Water Sys Oper II
3.0-Wtr Mtr Crs Cn Technician
1.0-Inspector, Field Svc
2.0-Gas System Tech
1.0-Equip Operator
2.0-Maintenance Mechanic Welding
1.0-Cement Finisher
1.0-Util Locator
5.0-Util Install/Rep-Lead
2.0-Util Install/Rep-L-Welding
12.0-Util Install/Rep
2.0 -Util Install/Rep-Welding
1.0- Util Install/Rep Assistant
1.0- Sr Utility Field Service Rep
5.0- Field Service Rep
1.0- Sr Mechanic
1.0- Restoration Lead
1.0- Compliance Manager
1.0- Gas Systems Tech II
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrative Asst
1.0-Sr Mgmt Analyst
2.0-Business Analyst
2.0-Program Assistant
2.0-Sr Business Analyst
1.0-Mgr Utilities Telecommunications
1.0 DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
Valerie Fong
ELECTRIC & WGW
ENGINEERING
1.0-Asst Director Util Engineering
1.0-Engineering Mgr - Electric
4.0-Sr Electrical Engineer
4.0-Electric Project Engineer
3.0-Power Engineer
4.0-Util Engr Estimator
3.0-Engr Tech III
1.0-Engineering Mgr - WGW
3.0-Admin Associate II
4.0-Sr Project Engineer
5.0-Project Engineer
4.0-Engineer
3.0-Inspector, Field Svc
1.0-Supv. Project Engineer
2.0-Business Analyst
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
1.0-Asst Dir Utl/Cust Support Svc
1.0 Admin Assoc I
1.0-Admin Associate II
1.0-Mgr Utility Rates
1.0-Mgr Util Mkt Svcs
1.0-Sr Market Analyst
1.0-Mgr Cust Svcs and Meter Reading
2.0-Customer Svr Spec-Lead
5.0-Customer Svc Rep
2.0-Customer Svc Spec
1.0-Util Credit/Col Spec
1.0-Meter Reader-Lead
6.0-Meter Reader
3.0-Util Key Account Rep
1.0-Marketing Engineer
4.0-Util Account Rep
1.0-Sr Resource Planner
FY 2012 Positions - All Funds
Totals: 235.00 Full-time
11.81 Hourly
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Organizational Chart
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
1.0-Assist Director, Resource Mgmt
1.0-Admin Associate II
1.0-Sr Resource Originator
5.0-Sr Resource Planner
5.0-Resource Planner
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 205
Enterprise Funds Overview
Enterprise Funds Overview
The City of Palo Alto's utility and public works operations are comprised of the Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas,
Water, Wastewater Collection, Refuse, Wastewater Treatment and Storm Drainage Funds. A financial
summary of the funds follows this overview followed by discussion and pertinent information in each fund
section.
REVENUES
The total combined budgeted revenues of the Enterprise Funds for FY 2012 is $277.9 million-- $3.1 million
or 1 percent lower than the previous fiscal year. The decrease is primarily attributed to a reduced forecast of
$1.6 million in surplus revenue for excess hydro sales and $1.2 million in the Central Valley Project Loan
Repayment program for reclamation projects in the Electric Fund.
EXPENDITURES
Aggregated budgeted expenditures of the Enterprise Funds are $300.5 million, when compared to $306.2
million in FY 2011, a decrease of $5.7 million. The primary factors contributing to the decrease are lower
commodity costs for the Electric and Gas Funds of $4.3 million and $5.2 million respectively when
compared to the prior year. However, water purchases from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC) are increasing by $3.7 million due to infrastructure upgrades. Contract services are increasing by
$3.5 million to perform a citywide sewer lateral inspection. Salaries and benefits are increasing by $ 1.1
million primarily due to increases in pension and health care costs.
"Operating transfers out" also increased by $1.0 million when compared to the prior year. The variance is
due to an increased equity transfer from the Electric and Gas Funds to the General Fund as a result of a
higher asset base.
Allocated charges increased slightly by $0.2 million when compared to FY 2011. A major component of
allocated charges includes General Fund costs shared by the Enterprise Funds.
UTILITY RATE CHANGES
This FY 2012 Adopted Budget includes a number of utility rate adjustments. The average monthly
residential Utilities bill is expected to increase by $12.07 or 3.7 percent for combined utility services,
including the Utility Users Taxes.
The size and timing of rate adjustments take into account current and future revenue requirements and
reserve levels. They may also cushion the impacts on customer bills by spreading rate adjustments during
consecutive or alternate years. Details of each rate adjustment are further discussed in the overview and
within each fund's section.
• Electric Fund - No rate increases proposed
• Gas Fund - No rate increases proposed
• Water Fund -12.5 percent system average rate increase and rate structure changes proposed
• Wastewater Collection Fund - Rate structure changes proposed for cost of service
• Storm Drainage Fund - A rate increase of 1.5 percent effective July 1, 2011, for inflation based on CPI
as allowed by the approved ballot measure
• Refuse Fund - Rate increase to be considered during FY 2012
RENT
Enterprise Funds pay market-based rental fees for the sites needed to conduct their business operations.
The rent paid for City-owned sites is adjusted annually after conducting an independent appraisal of all
sites. The rent for FY 2012 represents a $0.1 million increase from FY 2011.
Enterprise Funds Overview
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012206
EQUITY TRANSFERS
In FY 2010, the Council adopted a change to the methodology used to calculate the equity transfer from
Utilities Funds to General Fund. Under the new Utilities Enterprise Methodology, the equity transfers are based
on a rate of return on the asset base in the Electric and Gas Funds. In FY 2012, the General Fund equity transfer
increased by $0.4 million in the Electric Fund and $0.7 million in the Gas Fund.
RESERVES
Since no revenue or expense forecast is perfect, some Utilities Reserves serve as "balancing accounts" which
mitigate the risk of commodity price swings and insure against default by our wholesale suppliers. Other
Reserves are used to provide cash for replacement parts during an emergency infrastructure failure, or serve as
temporary "parking" for planned expenditures. Reserve levels that are above guidelines are returned to
customers in the form of lower future rates, or used to pay for expenses, which also result in lower future rates.
The total Enterprise Fund Reserve Balances (Supply and Distribution Rate Stabilization, Emergency Plant
Replacement, etc.) decrease by $16.5 million in FY 2012.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) plans to focus on customer service, infrastructure reliability, and cost
containment - priorities outlined in the Department's strategic plan and consistent with Council financial
priorities of City finances and environmental sustainability . In addition, the marketing of energy efficiency
programs and the increasing of renewable energy supplies will be focal points, especially in light of Council's
environmental sustainability priority and state-mandated energy-efficiency goals.
The Utilities Department continues to adapt to the changing regulatory and legislative landscape, including
developments in related transmission markets, greenhouse gas reduction regulations and requirements to
maintain reliable utility system operations. Utilities is working directly with the City Manager to better position
the department to manage increasing regulatory requirements, including the recent addition of a "Compliance
Manager" to deal with Federal Department of Transportation, California Department of Health Services,
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (and Western Electricity Coordinating Council) requirements among others.
An increased capacity to provide high-value services for customers continued with the May 4, 2009
implementation of SAP software for customer service and billing functions. These services continued with the
re-introduction of an updated online "My Utilities Account" (MUA) customer self-service portal. MUA provides
24/7 customer access to Utilities account information and allows on-line payment of utilities bills. The new
billing system is more flexible and will permit more utility usage and rate information to be displayed on the
bills with the goal to provide customers the information and incentives to use resources efficiently. Since the
prior fiscal year, MUA has gained over 7,000 new subscribers.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS
Overall, water commodity costs are expected to increase steadily over the next five years based on projections
provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which supplies water to Palo Alto. The
primary cost driver is the SFPUC's multi-billion dollar infrastructure repair and replacement project. Also
impacting costs is the fact that in recent years, actual consumption levels were lower than forecasted; thus,
annual revenues have not kept pace with the fixed expenses of the water distribution system. In light of these
developments, a revised water rate structure and water rate levels are being proposed for FY 2012.
Palo Alto's share of wastewater treatment costs--which are allocated among the five partners that use the
system--will increase by about $0.4 million in FY 2012.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Enterprise Funds Overview
207
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
CPAU continues to invest in its infrastructure, replacing deteriorated or aging facilities with new technologies,
to ensure reliable delivery of services in the future. Utilities continues to assess smart grid opportunities, the
potential to increase the City's connection points to the electric transmission grid to improve reliability, and to
seek local generation options.
In FY 2012, planned CIP expenditures for the Electric Fund total $8.7 million. New CIP projects include
rebuilding and replacing certain underground electric systems and electric distribution system conversions
from 4kV to 12kV.
FY 2012 Gas Fund planned CIP expenditures are $7.8 million. A significant amount of capital expenditures are
appropriated for the gas main replacements projects.
The Wastewater Collection Fund has budgeted $4.3 million for FY 2012 CIP expenditures. Included are projects
to rehabilitate collection systems and manholes, and to reduce groundwater and rainfall seepage into the
pipelines.
In FY 2012, $4.9 million is budgeted in the Water Fund for CIP expenditures. The Water Fund CIP primarily
involves the water main replacements and other projects focused on reliability. A significant CIP is the Seismic
Water System Upgrades project which will cost $9.7 million over the next three years (including $2.7 million in
FY 2012).
The FY 2012 Capital Budget document discusses in details the capital projects of all Utilities Department
Enterprise Funds.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
The PaloAltoGreen Program offers "new" renewable energy (as defined by the California Energy Commission) to
customers for a premium of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour over their applicable electric rate schedule. Introduced
in July 2003, this program had a five-year goal of 2,000 participants. As of December 2010, there are 6,345
active participants in the PaloAltoGreen Program which represents 21.5% percent of all electric accounts. The
PaloAltoGreen Program continues to achieve the nation's highest participation rate, according to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
CPAU exceeded all of its electric, natural gas and water efficiency goals for the FY 2010. This achievement is
attributed to the increased number of programs available for all customer types, as well as an expansion of
programs administered by third party agencies. Such third party program administration enhances the City's
ability to set and achieve greater efficiency goals while lessening the impact on staff and resources.
Given recent state legislation and Council's priority to promote environmental sustainability, the Utilities
Department is undertaking additional efforts to promote energy efficiency and the use of alternative resources.
The specific state laws include:
• SB1 (2006), also known as the "Million Solar Roofs Bill", requires publicly-owned utilities to offer rebates for
photovoltaic systems similar to those offered by investor-owned utilities like PG&E. This legislation sets a
statewide goal to create 3,000 megawatts of new, solar-produced electricity by 2017. By lowering the cost
of solar systems to consumers, SB1 aims to put California on pace to build a million solar roofs over the
next ten years.
• SB1037 (2005) establishes a statewide "loading order" for electric power resources, specifying the
following preference hierarchy: first, energy efficiency and demand reduction; second, renewable energy;
and third, conventional power supply. This legislation requires publicly-owned utilities to adopt this
Enterprise Funds Overview
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012208
loading order and to report annually to customers and the California Energy Commission (CEC) on
programs, expenditures, and energy savings results.
• AB2021 (2006) built on SB1037, adds new and very specific long-term planning, reporting, and review
requirements with specific deadlines, and a requirement to "treat efficiency as procurement
investments…without regard to previous minimum investments". AB 2021 requires the Utilities
Department to develop and submit 10-year energy efficiency plans to the CEC on a three-year cycle, with
annual reports to customers and the CEC.
• AB32 (2006), "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” sets state goals to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB32 requires publicly-owned utilities to report greenhouse gas
emissions and empowers the State Air Resources Board to determine the 1990 baseline emissions, to
establish emission reduction targets and regulations for reporting, and to adopt regulations for market-
based compliance mechanisms.
• AB1470 (2007) requires publicly owned utilities providing gas service to retail gas customers to adopt,
implement and finance a solar water heating system incentive program.
• AB920 (2009) requires utility companies to pay households or businesses for any extra electricity
produced by the customer's solar power system to encourage more people to invest in solar power while
maximizing conservation and energy efficiency.
In FY 2012, approximately $4.5 million is being devoted to incentives and programs to comply with these laws.
ELECTRIC UTILITY CHALLENGES
Since the December 2004 expiration of the City's 40-year contract with the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA), which supplied most of the City's electric supply needs, the Electric Utility has worked diligently to
address the resulting supply gap and meet the City's goal of reaching a 33% renewable portfolio standard.
Significant progress has been made in developing and implementing a long-term energy efficiency plan,
purchasing wind and landfill gas renewable power, obtaining market-based contracts, and developing plans
for improving the transmission infrastructure.
RISK MANAGEMENT
CPAU will continue to develop, implement, and work under approved risk management policies and
guidelines. Staff from several departments continue to work together to ensure that CPAU strategies and
implementation plans meet all relevant risk management policies, guidelines, and procedures.
GAS UTILITY CHALLENGES
The Gas Utility's commodity-hedging program, with a three-year "laddering" approach to purchasing gas, has
helped stabilize costs and retail rates in spite of marketplace volatility. Staff will continue to pursue supply
strategies that mitigate price swings. In addition, the Gas Utility will focus on promoting energy efficiency and
implementing capital projects that increase the infrastructure's reliability and safety.
WATER UTILITY CAPITAL WORK
The City's water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), has embarked on a series of
capital projects to upgrade its aqueducts and water transmission system, which will result in annual increases
in the City's wholesale water rates for the next five years.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Enterprise Funds Overview
209
Comprising all the cities, water districts, and private companies that purchase water from SFPUC, the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) actively participates in planning capital projects that will
improve the reliability of the regional water supply infrastructure. Though these infrastructure improvements
are costly, they will greatly increase the seismic reliability of the system which provides Palo Alto, and many
neighboring communities, with one of the highest quality sources of drinking water in the nation.
In addition, the Utility is planning capital projects in FY 2012 that include water main replacements, continued
installation and upgrading of customer services and meters, and the accelerated implementation of the
recommendations of the 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Study.
PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY FUNDS
Refuse
The Refuse Fund continues to exceed the State of California's solid waste diversion requirement, which
mandates cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills.
Effective July 1, 2009, a new agreement began with GreenWaste of Palo Alto for the collection and processing
of solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials, and other services. The financial health of the Refuse
Fund has been impacted by a number of factors including the new agreement with GreenWaste,
implementation of the Zero Waste Operational Plan programs, rising costs at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery
and Transfer (SMaRT) Station, and the revised closure cost for the City landfill (which will close in FY 2012).
A rate increase was approved by Council in October 2010, in order to maintain adequate revenues in the Refuse
Fund, and reductions in expenses were made until staff returns to the Council with results of an initial cost of
services study for Refuse Fund activities. The current rate increase will expire in October 2011. In order to
maintain adequate revenues, staff anticipates recommending that Council continue the rate approved in
October 2010, and may ask for an additional increase. A continuation of the cost of services study will provide
recommendations related to future rates for residential, commercial and industrial customers.
As directed by the City Council, staff is also undertaking efforts to achieve Zero Waste goals. The goal of Zero
Waste is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by 90 percent or more.
Storm Drain
The Storm Drainage Fee increase approved by property owners in April 2005 continues to provide funding for
high-priority storm drain capital improvements. In FY 2012, efforts will include Channing Avenue/Lincoln
Avenue Storm Drain Improvements and continued implementation of citywide system repairs.
Wastewater Treatment
Revenues in the Wastewater Treatment Fund will show an increase of $0.4 million in FY 2012, primarily due to
efforts to align budget revenue for contract cities more closely with projected actual amounts. The recently
completed ultraviolet disinfection system will lower costs and more safely treat plant effluent. No new capital
improvement projects are planned in FY 2012.
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012210
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Electric
Fund
Fiber
Optic
Fund
Gas
Fund
Wastewater
Collection
Fund
Water
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Storm
Drainage
Fund
Wastewater
Treatment
Fund
Airport
Fund Total
Revenues
Net Sales 109,963 2,609 42,013 14,485 29,366 23,947 5,536 12,566 0 240,485
Interest Income 4,014 310 948 480 971 301 148 499 0 7,669
Other Income 11,230 740 1,871 904 2,859 3,952 142 8,016 0 29,714
Bond Proceeds 000 0000 00 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $125,207 $3,659 $44,832 $15,868 $33,196 $28,199 $5,827 $21,081 $0 $277,868
Expenditures
Utility Purchases and Charges 69,846 0 19,397 7,954 15,774 13,000 0 0 0 125,970
Salaries and Benefits 11,079 928 4,635 2,074 5,339 4,160 994 9,509 0 38,717
Contract Services 4,306 158 4,850 178 740 5,808 516 1,877 0 18,433
Supplies and Materials 811 18 465 222 461 141 103 1,422 0 3,642
Facilities and Equipment Pur-
chases 75 063 1 810 8 10 0 174
General Expense 4,070 25 914 78 435 227 15 411 0 6,176
Rents and Leases 3,939 27 341 202 2,896 4,298 6 0 0 11,709
Allocated Charges 8,344 405 3,910 1,958 3,116 3,255 606 4,709 0 26,304
Debt Service 8,966 0 948 129 3,338 623 950 818 0 15,772
Subtotal $111,436 $1,561 $35,522 $12,795 $32,105 $31,522 $3,198 $18,756 $0 $246,896
Equity Transfer 11,587 0 6,006 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,593
Capital Improvement Program 8,685 500 7,821 4,274 4,869 6,246 2,496 56 0 34,947
Operating Transfers Out 372 10 198 98 121 91 22 105 0 1,017
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $132,081 $2,071 $49,547 $17,167 $37,095 $37,859 $5,716 $18,918 $0 $300,453
TO/FROM RESERVES $(6,874) $1,588 $(4,715) $(1,299) $(3,899) $(9,660) $111 $2,163 $0 $(22,586)
Enterprise Fund Reserves
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 211
Enterprise Fund Reserves
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Electric Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 9,205 303 9,508 6,355 - 12,710
Supply Rate Stabilization 41,931 (1,319)40,612 32,016 - 64,031
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Subtotal $111,920 $(6,874)$105,046
Gas Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 10,048 (9,659)389 2,676 -5,353
Supply Rate Stabilization 3,215 4,944 8,159 4,665 - 9,330
Debt Service Reserve 952 0 952
Subtotal $15,215 $(4,715)$10,500
Wastewater Collection Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 5,850 (1,299)4,551 2,156 - 4,311
Subtotal $6,850 $(1,299)$5,551
Water Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 15,148 (3,899)11,249 4,614 -9,229
Debt Service Reserve 3,348 0 3,348
Subtotal $19,496 $(3,899)$15,597
Refuse Fund
Rate Stabilization (5,285) (3,560)(8,845) 2,462 - 4,924
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
Subtotal $(4,627) $(3,560)$(8,187)
Storm Drainage Fund
Rate Stabilization 245 111 356
Subtotal $245 $111 $356
Enterprise Fund Reserves
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012212
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,747 182 1,929 1,929 (max.)
Rate Stabilization (2,526) 1,981 (545) 3,050 - 6,100
Subtotal $(779) $2,163 $1,384
Fiber Optics Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 9,406 1,588 10,994 670 - 1,675
Subtotal $10,406 $1,588 $11,994
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,485)$142,241
Emergency Plant Replacement 6,747 182 6,929
Rate Stabilization 87,237 (10,809)76,428
Debt Service Reserve 4,300 0 4,300
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Shasta Rewind Loan 000
Conservation Loan 000
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,485)$142,241
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Liability 10,648 (6,100)4,548
TOTAL RESERVES AND FULLY-FUNDED LIABILITY $169,374 $(22,585)$146,789
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Enterprise Revenues by Fund
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 213
Enterprise Revenues by Fund
Electric - 45%
Fiber Optics - 1%Gas - 16%
Wastewater
Collection - 6%
Water -
12%
Refuse - 10%
Wastewater
Treatment - 8%
Storm Drainage - 2%
3 Year Trend - Revenues ($Millions)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Ele
c
t
r
i
c
Fi
b
e
r
O
p
t
i
c
s
Ga
s
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
Wa
t
e
r
Re
f
u
s
e
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Tr
e
a
t
2010 Actual
2011 Adjusted
2012 Proposed
$277.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
Enterprise Expenditures by Category
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012214
Enterprise Expenditures by Category
Rent/
Lease - 3.9%
Facil/Equip
Purch - 0.1%
Supplies/Materials -
1.2%
General
Exp - 2.1%
Allocated
Charges - 8.8%
Contract Services - 6.1%
Debt
Service - 5.2%
Equity
Transfer - 5.4%
Op Transfers
Out - 0.3%
Capital Improv Prog -
11.6%
Utility Purch Chgs -
41.9%Salaries/Benefits -
12.9%
$300.5 Million / Proposed FY 2012
3 Year Trend - Expenses ($Millions)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
P
u
r
c
h
C
h
g
s
Sa
l
a
r
i
e
s
/
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
/
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Fa
c
i
l
/
E
q
u
i
p
P
u
r
c
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
Re
n
t
/
L
e
a
s
e
All
o
c
a
t
e
d
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Eq
u
i
t
y
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
Op
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
O
u
t
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
Pr
o
g
2010 Actual
2011 Adjusted
2012 Proposed
Average Residential Monthly Utility Bill
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 215
Average Residential Monthly Utility Bill
Utility
Current
FY 2011
Bill
Proposed
FY 2012
Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%
Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%
Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%
Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%
Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%
Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%
User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3%
TOTAL MONTHLY BILL $328.89 $340.96 $12.07 $3.7%
COMMENTS:
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012216
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 217
Electric Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
218 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 219
Electric Fund
Electric Fund
To provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City.
OVERVIEW
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the City of Palo Alto's Utilities (CPAU) Electric Division plans to focus on improving
infrastructure reliability, enhancing the customer service connection experience, increasing energy
efficiency participation, increasing the percentage of electric supply obtained from renewable energy
supplies, and maintaining a supply cost advantage as measured against the California wholesale electric
market.
Infrastructure Reliability
The integrity of the infrastructure required for achieving a high level of reliability and value for our
customers is of paramount importance to CPAU. Capital projects in FY 2012 include the following:
• Complete construction of Underground District 45 (more information may be found in the FY 2012
Capital budget document)
• Begin engineering design of Underground District 47
• Continue the on-going multiyear system rebuilding projects encompassing the old Underground
Districts 17, 19, and 24 and at the Hewlett Subdivision along Los Trancos Road
• Continue ongoing system improvements and upgrades
• Replace a substation transformer at Hanover Substation
• Install transformers and meters for new customers
• Continue utility site security enhancements
• Convert the primary electric distribution system along W. Charleston Road/Wilkie Way/El Camino Real
and Middlefield Road/Moreno Avenue from 4kV to 12kV
Additional new capital projects include: multiyear funding for reconductoring the 60kV Overhead
Transmission system; converting light-emitting diode (LED) street light system; and implementing the
Smart Grid Technology as recommended in the "Smart Grid Assessment" study completed by EnerNex
Corporation and approved by Council.
Supply
During FY 2011, staff spent considerable time revising the objectives, strategies, and implementation
design of Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). Staff will devote a significant amount of time to
completing the LEAP implementation tasks and continue to manage a diversified, reliable, cost-effective,
and renewable portfolio consistent with the revised LEAP strategies. The LEAP strategies include
preference for least-cost resources while including the cost of environmental impacts, maximization of
cost-effective energy efficiency, renewable supply goals, risk management, incentives for locally sited,
ultra-clean generation, demand reduction programs, and consistency with the Council-adopted Climate
Protection Plan.
Due to the long-term contract with the Western Area Power Administration for hydroelectric power and
other low-cost supply contracts, overall costs for electricity are less than market costs. Nevertheless, supply
and transmission expenses present significant challenges as those costs continue to fluctuate. Wholesale
electric costs rose to very high levels in the summer of 2008, then fell precipitously until the end of 2008
and remained at relatively low levels throughout 2009 and 2010. Highly volatile energy prices mean that
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012220
high prices could return. Although electric costs have declined from their heights in the summer of 2008,
persistent dry weather through the summer of 2010 reduced hydroelectric generation, requiring CPAU to
purchase replacement energy, driving up costs. The hydro conditions for FY 2011 are anticipated to be far more
favorable.
Actions taken by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) to promote changes in the industry's structure resulted in greater complexity and increased
costs for both transmission and for maintaining the required local (Bay Area) generating capacity. Currently,
CPAU's access to local generating capacity is very limited, and it costs more to acquire power from more distant
resources.
CPAU has made significant progress in mitigating increased costs for longer-distance generation by developing
programs to stay on target with the approved long-term energy efficiency plan. CPAU is also purchasing wind
and landfill gas renewable power. Other efforts include obtaining market-based contracts and reviewing
improvements to transmission infrastructure and to CPAU's connections to the electric transmission grid
system. CPAU continues its investigation of customer-sited generation and cogeneration options, but no
customer sites have yet proven feasible for these options.
The LEAP (Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan) reflects a planning methodology for managing the City's supply
portfolio. By clearly identifying and capturing supply needs and risks, staff recommends long-term portfolio
elements and short-term power purchases. During FY 2012, implementation of the LEAP initiatives will
continue. LEAP initiatives include a focus on energy efficiency, ultra-clean small-scale local generation, power
from renewable resources, transmission upgrades, market-based contracts, hydroelectric generation risk
management, and actions to meet climate protection goals.
During calendar year 2010, renewable supplies from two wind projects and three landfill-gas-to-energy plants
delivered about 19 percent of the City's electric supply needs. The level of renewable supplies is expected to
increase slightly to 20 percent for FY 2011. The City has executed contracts for renewable energy from three
additional landfill-gas-to-energy plants, which are expected to come on-line in late 2012 and early 2013. After
these three plants are in operation, the renewable supplies are expected to provide about 27 percent (not
including small hydro) of the City's electric supply needs in calendar year 2013.
Since the passage of Senate Bill 1 (2003), Senate Bill 1037 (2005), and Assembly Bill 2021 (2006), CPAU has been
required to consider cost-effective energy efficiency as our primary supply option, followed by renewable
energy, and then by conventional generating sources. As a result, in addition to the previous Demand-side
Management programs, funding for energy efficiency programs was increased. In addition, a variety of new
programs delivered by third party agencies have been offered to customers in the past two years. In May 2010,
Council significantly increased the ten-year energy efficiency goals from those set in 2007.
The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). There have been changes in the
arrangements for allocating costs to members as well as changes in membership, with an overall neutral
impact to the City. Staff will continue to be involved in monitoring and participating in those NCPA strategies
that continue to enhance the value the agency provides the City.
Sales, Marketing and Customer Service
The Electric Utility's Public Benefits program continues to see significant expansion to reach broader markets.
The California Solar Initiative (Senate Bill 1) allowed the Photovoltaic (PV) Partners program to offer additional
funding for rebates to those in Palo Alto who install solar electric panels. Customers continue to take advantage
of efficiency and PV rebates, which help the City meet its Climate Protection Plan goals. The results of these
programs are evaluated by a third party consultant, as required, and reported to the state.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
221
The 2010 Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency (EE) Plan has a cumulative goal of achieving a 7.2% reduction in
consumption by FY 2020 as a direct result of utility programs. Not only does this goal double the one set in
2007, but it also must be achieved on top of the substantial "natural" reductions that occur every year when
consumers buy more efficient equipment created by mandatory state standards.
The table below shows CPAU's record thus far in meeting its annual electric reduction goals. Savings are shown
as a percentage of total retail sales.
Rates
No rate adjustment is proposed for FY 2012. The last rate adjustment occurred in FY 2010 which was an
increase of 10 percent.
Reserves
Electric Rate Stabilization Reserves (RSRs) are maintained and managed in accordance with Council-approved
guidelines. The RSRs provide a cushion for sudden changes in commodity costs and other operating expenses,
to reduce the frequency of rate adjustments, and absorb any sudden cost increases. Additionally, the Council-
approved LEAP Implementation Plan specifies the need to maintain an adequate Supply RSR to ensure stable
rates in an environment of uncertainty. The reserves are not used to solve long-term financial needs or to
address major catastrophic events. Rates are established such that revenues adequately cover current
operating, capital, and other financial obligations. Reserves may be above the maximum guideline level or
below the minimum guideline level for a particular year as long as the levels are projected to move back to
between the minimum and maximum over the five-year financial forecast planning horizon.
In FY 2009, Council approved changes to Electric RSR guidelines. Target reserve levels reflect the risk
assessment of the RSRs that must be performed annually according to the guidelines. Risks for the Electric
Supply RSR include exposure to hydrological conditions, market price fluctuations for electricity, changes in
sales volumes, risks related to legislative and regulatory initiatives, and credit risks related to CPAU's energy
suppliers. The target level for the Electric Distribution RSR is based on a risk assessment that includes potential
revenue shortfalls from declining sales and requirements for Capital Improvement Programs. In FY 2012, staff
plans to re-evaluate the RSR guidelines and make a recommendation to the Utilities Advisory Commission and
Council.
Without an electric rate increase in FY 2012, the Budget results in a total reserve balance of approximately $105
million. The Electric Supply RSR ending balance is projected to end FY 2011 at $40.6 million, which is above the
minimum guideline of $32 million. The ending Electric Distribution RSR is projected to be $9.5 million as of the
end of FY 2012, which is above the minimum guideline of $6.3 million.
The Calaveras Reserve is maintained to cover the amount that certain electric assets are projected to cost above
their market value in the future, or their "stranded costs." In February 2009, staff provided Council with an
updated assessment of stranded costs and alerted them that there could be more funds in the Calaveras
Reserve than needed to cover stranded costs. In June 2009, Council adopted new guidelines for the
management of the Calaveras Reserve. The guidelines require an annual re-calculation of the stranded costs,
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012222
both for the upcoming budget year and for the long term, and set the minimum transfer from the Calaveras
Reserve to the Electric Supply Operating Budget equal to the stranded cost estimate for the budget year. In
addition, the guidelines require that if there are funds available in excess of long-term stranded cost needs,
staff will work with the Utilities Advisory Commission to identify and recommend projects for Council
consideration and approval. Such projects shall be to the benefit of electric ratepayers.
Projects that Council has approved for funding from the Calaveras Reserve include:
• $200,000 per year in FY 2010 and FY 2011 for the PLUG-In Program for investments in or incentives for
cogeneration projects within the City
• $70,000 in FY 2010 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and other
smart grid elements and to develop a strategic plan to implement appropriate advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) and other smart grid elements
• $2 million in seed funding for a Business Electric Efficiency Financing Program. This program should be
available to businesses during calendar 2011.
Other projects may be identified in FY 2012 for funding from the Calaveras Reserve. The smart grid strategic
plan will be complete by the end of FY 2011 and several projects may be proposed for funding by the Calaveras
Reserve. The projected Calaveras Reserve balance is $50.3 million at the end of FY 2012. An initiative in the 2012
Utilities Strategic Plan is to re-evaluate the Calaveras Reserve guidelines since the reality of stranded costs for
the Electric Fund has been questioned.
PROGRAM UPDATE
As of January 2011, there have been 422 photovoltaic systems installed, representing over 2,798 kW of
pollution-free electric generation on the rooftops of Palo Alto businesses and residents. In addition, 33 solar
water heating systems had been installed, with $55,763 paid in rebates. All but one of these systems were
residential. An estimated 5,400 kWh (as well as 3,663 therms) have been saved with these systems.
In addition, PaloAltoGreen remains the number one voluntary renewable energy program in the country.
PaloAltoGreen currently boasts a participation rate greater than 21% percent. Since the City of Palo Alto has
increased its participation in PaloAltoGreen and the City has engaged in many other renewable and sustainable
practices, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Palo Alto as a "Green Power Community"
for the third year in a row.
A research program on Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights was completed in Spring 2010. The City purchased the
LED lights at wholesale cost for $38 each and discounted them to a retail price of $4 each. Customers were able
to purchase two bulbs-- one each of two different styles. They were asked to provide feedback on lighting
quality, preference between two styles of lamps, and the amount they were willing to pay for future lights. The
program was enormously successful, with the first delivery selling out in less than two days. The entire order of
1,000 of each style of lamp (2,000 total) was purchased by customers at the three participating local hardware/
lighting stores. Feedback was received from 713 customers. Preference between lamp styles was nearly equal,
and customers were generally interested in purchasing lamps again. However, the average price that
customers expressed a willingness to pay was about $11, which is far less than the current price for this style of
light. In addition, many customers were concerned about the quality of the lights, both the color and the
brightness, with many customers stating that the lights are too blue and/or too dim. The result of this study will
assist staff in developing future lighting programs.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
223
A new program to provide residents with information comparing energy and water usage with similar
neighbors (Home Utility Usage Report or "Home Energy Report") began in November 2010. Money to fund this
program was provided by the federal government through the American Recovery and Relief Act (ARRA)
stimulus funds. The program received generally positive results in the first few months, with only 31 customers
(or 0.17% of the 18,648 report recipients) asking to be removed from the program by the end of calendar 2010.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
Environmental Sustainability
In August 2006, Council endorsed the California Publicly Owned Electric Utilities' Principles Addressing
Greenhouse Reduction Goals, which commits the Electric Fund to develop a greenhouse gas reduction plan
consistent with the State's reduction goals. In December 2006, Council approved a resolution joining
International Cities for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)'s "Cities for Climate Protection Campaign",
committing to undertake actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the community. In March
2007, Council approved new Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Objectives and Guidelines, which include the
guideline to develop a Climate Action Plan that recognizes the Mayor's Green Ribbon Task Force
recommendations and the ICLEI campaign milestones, and revised guidelines that accelerate and expand the
City's renewable energy goals, set the stage for expanded and enhanced energy efficiency programs, and
promote local small-scale and ultra-clean distributed generation and cogeneration. More details are in the Palo
Alto Climate Protection Plan approved by Council in December 2007.
In 2010 the City completed its fifth California Climate Action Registry greenhouse gas inventory and
certification for year 2009, retaining the designation of "Climate Action Leader." Estimated community-wide
CO2 emissions from CPAU-provided electricity were slightly higher in 2009 (163,068 metric tons) than in base
year 2005 (145,007 metric tons) but lower than the 171,709 metric tons of emissions in 2008, despite increases
in power deliveries from renewable resources. The higher emissions were a result of the purchase of market
based brown electricity to make up for the loss of hydro electricity production due to California's drought
conditions.
PaloAltoGreen continues to maintain the highest participation rate of any green pricing program in the nation,
with almost 21% percent of electric customers participating in the program. As a result, in 2010 CPAU
purchased an additional 6.8 percent of its annual energy supply from wind and solar renewable energy
certificate resources on top of the renewable supplies purchased to meet the Council-approved renewable
portfolio targets.
Renewable energy from two wind farms and three landfill gas-to-energy facilities provided about 19 percent of
annual energy use for 2010. A fourth landfill gas-to-energy facility is expected to begin operation in 2012
bringing the total to 20% of the City's energy use. Contracts for two additional renewable resources, obtained
as part of our progress toward the City's accelerated renewable energy goals, were approved in May 2010 and
are expected to be operational in 2013 for a total of 26.5% of the City's energy use. Additional renewable
resources will be pursued in FY 2012 to meet the Council-approved goal of 33% renewable energy by 2015.
All of the Electric Fund's residential and commercial energy and demand-side management programs and
incentives contribute to the Council's priority of "Environmental Sustainability." Since the City itself is also a top
customer for the Utilities energy efficiency programs, these programs also contribute to the Council's
"Economic Health" priority by lowering the operating costs of City facilities and parks.
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012224
The City received $663,000 in ARRA funds in October 2009 and has allocated the funds to two projects - the
Home Energy Report project and the Light Emitting Diode (LED) streetlight project. The Home Energy Report
project is being implemented by the OPOWER company and provides bi-monthly reports to residential
customers showing their energy usage compared with other similar households in their neighborhood. The
reports help to increase customer awareness of their energy usage and motivate them to reduce electric and
natural gas consumption. The first set of reports was mailed out to residents in November 2010.
For the LED streetlight project, City Council approved the purchase of 600 LED streetlight fixtures to replace
250W High Pressure Sodium (HPS) streetlight fixtures on Alma and El Camino Real. LED lights produce
significant energy savings compared to HPS streetlights while maintaining luminance levels and improving
luminance uniformity. Additionally, LED lights do not contain mercury and have a much longer life than HPS
lights, thereby reducing the City's streetlight maintenance costs. An RFP for the installation of the LED
streetlight fixtures is currently in process. The installation of the 600 fixtures is expected to be completed by
late Spring 2011.
FY 2012 will see continued funding for efficiency, renewable energy and other demand-side management
activities as required by the State of California's Public Benefits guidelines. This just-under-$3 million annual
funding is mandated through billing surcharges based on 2.85% of utility revenues. Supplemental annual
funding of approximately $1.6 million in FY 2012 will be provided through the Resource Supply budget to
comply with additional state legislative energy mandates, including those of Senate Bill 1, the California
"million solar roofs" legislation.
Residential programs promoting Environmental Sustainability in FY 2012 include:
• Smart Energy Program---rebates for ENERGY STAR® appliances, insulation, furnaces, and other equipment
• Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP)---free low-income efficiency installations
• Refrigerator recycling program
• Home Energy Reports
• Compact Fluorescent Flood Light rebate program
• Light Emitting Diode (LED) holiday light-string exchange
• Green@Home energy audit with Blue Line Monitoring Systems
• PV Partners Program---solar electric installation rebates
• Solar water heating rebates
• Community event sponsorship promoting participation in residential efficiency programs
• PAUSD Grant Program---$50,000 grant for efficiency improvement education
• PaloAltoGreen---renewable energy supply source option
• New construction incentive program, in coordination with the Planning department and the CALGreen
Building Code
Commercial programs promoting Environmental Sustainability in FY 2012 include:
• Commercial Advantage Program---rebates for many efficiency equipment installations
• Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program---focused audit and implementation assistance for
larger businesses
• PV Partners Program---solar electric rebates
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
225
• Right Lights+ Program---small commercial lighting, refrigeration, and controls installation program
• Data Center efficiency program
• New Construction incentive program
• Meter Links website program---shows commercial customers' prior-day load profile
• Efficiency Improvement Training---for City facilities staff and customers
• PLUG-In Program---ultra-clean small-scale distributed generation and cogeneration
•Financing program
• Third Party Review of Efficiency Programs---to ensure that savings are being appropriately evaluated,
measured, and verified, as required by Assembly Bill 2021
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 110,450,197 112,027,920 112,027,920 109,962,697 (2,065,223)
Interest Income 5,750,864 4,301,000 4,301,000 4,013,600 (287,400)
Other Income 14,473,716 12,250,085 12,402,269 11,230,474 (1,171,795)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $130,674,777 $128,579,005 $128,731,189 $125,206,771 $(3,524,418)
Administration 5,823,762 6,340,862 6,365,826 6,666,446 300,620
General Services
CIP 142,724 915,001 914,786 919,998 5,212
Operations 963,402 1,271,196 1,266,916 1,309,959 43,043
Resource Management
Purchases 68,713,475 74,078,000 74,078,000 69,846,000 (4,232,000)
Operations 3,033,430 4,099,893 4,185,623 4,534,090 348,467
Customer Support Services 1,896,952 1,696,912 1,712,952 1,859,067 146,115
Distribution System
Systems Improvement(CIP)7,340,382 7,170,000 7,309,698 5,765,000 (1,544,698)
Customer Design and Connection Services(CIP)1,896,224 2,000,000 1,998,909 2,000,000 1,091
Operations 9,173,641 10,539,191 10,642,389 10,957,681 315,292
Demand-side Management (DSM)3,894,803 2,995,143 3,002,822 3,608,746 605,924
Debt Service 7,822,436 8,949,000 8,949,000 8,966,300 17,300
Equity Transfer 11,120,000 11,195,000 11,195,000 11,587,000 392,000
Rent 3,813,101 3,498,101 3,588,101 3,688,014 99,913
Operating Transfers Out 785,345 865,625 995,377 372,395 (622,982)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $126,419,677 $135,613,924 $136,205,399 $132,080,696 $(4,124,703)
TO/FROM RESERVES $4,255,100 $(7,034,919) $(7,474,210)$(6,873,925) $600,285
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012226
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 68,713,475 74,078,000 74,078,000 69,846,000
Salaries and Benefits 10,848,524 10,452,864 10,621,791 11,078,505
Contract Services 3,266,182 4,283,551 4,312,991 4,305,700
Supplies and Materials 657,069 814,658 814,658 811,048
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,930 84,080 84,080 74,905
General Expense 2,680,127 3,173,845 3,173,845 4,070,059
Rents and Leases 3,969,811 3,755,176 3,845,176 3,939,414
Allocated Charges 7,164,448 7,877,124 7,912,088 8,344,372
Debt Service 7,822,436 8,949,000 8,949,000 8,966,300
Equity Transfer 11,120,000 11,195,000 11,195,000 11,587,000
Capital Improvement Program 9,379,330 10,085,001 10,223,393 8,684,998
Operating Transfers Out 785,345 865,625 995,377 372,395
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $126,419,677 $135,613,924 $136,205,399 $132,080,696
Total Full Time Positions 105.98 102.95 102.95 104.96
Total Temporary Positions 3.50 3.59 3.59 3.77
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Average purchase cost per MWH (SEA)$74.11 $69.01 $75.75
2. The Standard & Poor's revenue bond credit rating will be AA- or higher.AA- AAA AAA
3. Percent of electricity from Palo Alto Green Program (SEA)7% 6%6%
4. Percent of customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green Program (SEA)22% 21%21%
5. Average wait time for customers calling the Customer Service Center 70 sec 90 sec 90 sec
6. Number of total participants in the Rate Assistance Program (RAP)1,000 1,500 1,300
7. Amount of annual assistance for RAP for Electric bills $180,000 $270,000 $320,000
8. Reading accuracy for the Meter Reading group 99.9% 99.9%99.9%
9. Achieve percentage of customers in PAG as shown in City's adopted
Sustainability Policy 22% 21%21%
10. Achieve 10 Year Energy Efficiency Goals in kWh- Residential 747,943 850,000 750,000
11. Achieve 10 Year Energy Efficiency Goals in kWh- Business 5,838,985 6,000,000 6,100,000
12. Number of Palo Alto School District students attending class presentations
for solar, electricity, and water education 654 650 650
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
227
Efficiency:
1. Customer outages will be equal to or less than 60 minutes in duration as
reported in the nationally recognized electric System Average
Interruptible Duration Index (SAIDI)
52 minutes <60 <60
2. The number of customer outages will be equal to or less than 3 per
customer per year as reported in the nationally recognized System
Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)
2.2 <3 <3
3. Bank Drafting- Increase customer participation >25% >25%>25%
4. My Utilities Account- increasing the participating customers to greater
than 10% of total N/A >10%>20%
5. Increase participants in low-income efficiency program (REAP) by 10%87 80 80
Effectiveness:
1. The customer satisfaction rating from an outside rating agency, measured
against other California utilities will be equal to or greater than the state
average. The scale is from one to ten with ten being the highest (SP-C1.1)
7.7 7.7 7.8
2. Citizen survey- percent rating electric utility good or excellent (SEA)79% 85%85%
3. Increase annual purchase of electricity from renewable fuel sources to
meet Council-directed targets of (1) 20% renewable power by 2008 and (2)
33% renewable power by 2015
17.9% 20%20%
4. Uncollectable Revenue (Write-Off) will be less than 0.20 percent of Fund
Net Revenue. (new)0.07% .12%.13%
5. Reduce days lost due to workplace injury to 5 or less 1<5<5
6. Increase kW of solar electric (PV) systems installed in PV Partners Program
to level in City's 10 Year Plan 2,221 3000 3,250
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 9,205 303 9,508 6,355 - 12,710
Supply Rate Stabilization 41,931 (1,319)40,612 32,016 - 64,031
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
TOTAL RESERVES $111,920 $(6,874)$105,046
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012228
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Decrease net sales (625)(625)
Decrease surplus energy revenue (1,580)(1,580)
Increase connection charges 50 50
Increase CIP reimbursements from customers 705 705
Decrease other revenue (96)(96)
Decrease interest income (287)(287)
Decrease Central Valley Project loan repayments (Note 2) (1,244)(1,244)
Increase in operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund (Note 3)70 70
Decrease in operating transfers from other Enterprise Funds (Note 4) (400)(400)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(3,477) $70 $(3,407)
Adjustments (Note 1)(117)(117)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(3,477) $(47)$(3,524)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Salary Adjustments (Note 5) 284 284
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (122)(122)
Personnel Benefits Costs Increase (Note 6) 534 534
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $696 $0 $696
Adjustments (Note 1)0
Net Salary and Benefits Changes $696 $0 $696
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
229
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Represents loan advances to Central Valley Projects and payment back to the fund. The difference
between the amount loaned and the payment received is due to timing.
Note 3: Refund of accumulated replacement charges that had been paid to the Vehicle Replacement and
Maintenance Fund for vehicles/equipment that have now been removed from service and will not be replaced.
Note 4: Decrease in transfers from other Enterprise Funds reflects reimbursements made in FY 2011 for CIP EL-
11014 Smart Grid Technology.
Note 5: Salary adjustments are primarily due to a net increase of 2.01 FTEs which includes various reallocations
to/from other funds and the addition of 1.0 FTE Utilities Account Representative.
Note 6: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to a net increase of 2.01 FTEs and increases for the
pension component of the benefits allocation.
Non-Salary
Decrease electric commodity (Note 7) (2,988)(2,988)
Decrease Central Valley Project loan advances (Note 2) (1,244)(1,244)
Increase debt service 17 17
Increase bankcard service charges 50 50
Increase in solar incentives- alternative resource programs 300 300
Increase program and project consultants to meet energy efficiency goals 350 350
Increase demand-side management program incentives 50 50
Increase supply-funded energy efficiency incentives 200 200
Increase contract services to upgrade emergency notification system 125 125
Decrease various contract services (206)(206)
Decrease supplies and materials (4)(4)
Decrease general expense (10)(10)
Decrease capital improvement program (Note 8) (1,778)(1,778)
Allocated Charges Increase (Note 9) 577 577
Increase rate of return transfer to General Fund 392 392
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund (20)(20)
Decrease operating transfer to Capital Projects Fund (Note 10) (225)(225)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 11) (378)(378)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(4,792) $0 $(4,792)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(4,096) $0 $(4,096)
Adjustments (Note 1)(29)(29)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(4,096) $(29)$(4,125)
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012230
Note 7: Changes in electric commodity costs are due to expected changes in supply and transmission
expenses.
Note 8: Projected CIP expenditures for the Electric Fund are $8.7 million in FY 2012.
Note 9: Increase in allocated charges is primarily due to increases in cost plan charges from the General Fund
and increases in utilities administration charges.
Note 10: Decrease in transfers to Capital Projects Fund reflects reimbursements made in FY 2011 for CIP PF-
01002 Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements and CIP PF-05002 Municipal Services Center Improvements.
Note 11: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the SAP upgrade/Utilities
billing system and the radio infrastructure replacement project.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
These programs continue to be expanded and enhanced to follow the requirements of both state legislation
and the City's Climate Protection Plan goals. New efficiency programs have focused on the underserved
markets of small commercial and residential low income customers, as well as providing greater incentives to
motivate owners and builders to look at "greener" and more efficient designs for new construction. The solar
electric PV Partners program was redesigned again to closely match the new statewide solar program, which
requires that funding levels and other requirements, including efficiency, new system inspection and reporting,
be increased.
California natural gas utilities were legislatively mandated to implement a new solar water heating program for
customers. CPAU introduced a new program during 2008 to encourage additional reduction in natural gas
consumption. The program incentive is an up-front rebate applied towards the installed cost of a new system.
Staff has increased the marketing and contractor participation in this program to try to increase customer
participation levels.
Staff is in the process of developing new programs to provide additional energy efficiency options for
customers. New programs in development include an Energy Efficiency Loan Program for businesses. This
program will be available to business owners and property tenants for the installation of efficient equipment
and will be administered by a third party agency. In addition, a request for proposals was sent out in an effort to
add to the programs available to residential and business customers to assist in achieving new efficiency goals.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
As in previous years, a significant portion of the budget is designated for the undergrounding of utility
distribution lines. Benefits of undergrounding include system improvement, higher reliability, reduced tree
trimming costs, and improved aesthetics. During FY 2012, the focus will be on completing construction for
Underground Conversion District Number 47, replacing the Hanover substation transformer, reconductoring
transmission lines, and installing Light Emitting Diode (LED) streetlights.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
231
The Utility is continuing to use construction practices that minimize the impacts on tree roots and planting
areas. The Utilities Department is continuing discussions with manufacturers on possible visual design
enhancements for transformers and switches with current specifications calling for smaller sizes. In addition,
the Department is consulting with the City's design consultant on above-ground equipment placement to
minimize visual impact. (Programs L-80 and L-81)
TRANSPORTATION
Starting in FY 2004, the Electric Utility assumed the full cost of operating and maintaining the City's traffic
signals and street lights. Staff and funds are dedicated to this purpose. (Policies T-24 and T-39) A pilot CIP to
replace the street lights with Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights is underway. (Policy T-22)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The pilot capital project to study the replacement of the City's streetlights with Light Emitting Diode (LED)
lights is expected to be completed by the end of FY 2011. A plan and funding for a rollout of LED lights was
developed in FY 2011. They will use less energy and can be disposed of without concern about releasing
mercury into the environment. (Goal N-9, Policies N-44 and N-46)
CPAU is pursuing adequate low-cost supplies by participating in cost-effective programs offered by Western
Area Power Administration and other suppliers and marketers of energy. Staff purchases low cost supplies
through Western and other sources. (Policy N-45)
PaloAltoGreen has achieved the number-one ranking among all green power programs in the country by
participation percentage. At present 21.5 percent of customers subscribe to PaloAltoGreen (6,345 as of
December 31, 2010).
As part of the Electric and Gas Utilities, "Demand-Side Management programs" provide staff support and
technical assistance in energy conservation and demand-side management to architects, developers, schools,
and utility customers. Consultant contracts have been executed, rebate programs are continuing, and technical
assistance is being provided to customers on an ongoing basis. (Policy N-47)
To maintain service reliability, funds are included for line-clearing of trees around utility lines. Funds are
included to expand the implementation of the Utility "A Right Tree in the Right Place" program to target areas
of high maintenance and high reliability to reduce line-clearing costs and improve reliability. (Programs N-14
and N-18)
The Department will continue its ongoing implementation of utility rate structures that encourage energy
conservation and are in balance with other rate-making objectives, such as offering competitive rates. Rates are
set to achieve a balance between actual service costs, market prices, and the goal of promoting conservation
and efficient use, and will continue to provide a baseline service rate for residential customers. (Program N-63)
The Electric Fund Public Benefits program continues to provide direct incentives to Palo Alto residents,
businesses, and institutional customers such as schools and City facilities to use energy wisely. Since June 1999,
programs have been marketed and progressively implemented. Public education addressing energy
conservation continues through the use of bill inserts, customer contacts, and other methods of
communication.
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012232
Since the passage of AB1890 and the institution of a Public Benefits charge on all customer bills, staff is
monitoring and evaluating cost-effective ways to fund investments in alternative energy sources. The Utility
has an ongoing photovoltaic program that provides residents with incentives as well as cost/benefit
information on this alternative fuel source. (Programs N-63 and N-67, Policy N-48)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Due to the ongoing level of construction and redevelopment activity occurring in the City, the CIP for services,
transformers, and meters has been increased to accommodate this need. (Policy C-9)
Staff will continue to focus efforts on replacing and maintaining the aging infrastructure and improving
reliability. Specific projects will address the continuing need for accelerated maintenance and replacement of
deteriorated overhead facilities and rebuilding underground facilities that are near the end of their useful life.
Projects related to Smart Grid have the ability to address methods of providing energy use information directly
to customers which facilitates more efficient use of energy. The utility will aggressively and proactively respond
to new customer service connection requests. (Policy C-9)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
233
GENERAL SERVICES
To design, construct, operate, maintain, and improve the traffic signal, street lighting and communication systems to ensure
adequate, safe, economic, reliable, environmentally sound, and efficient delivery of these services to our customers.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 638,137 750,037 745,757 793,250
Contract Services 69,026 151,800 151,800 142,200
Supplies and Materials 126,964 140,700 140,700 143,550
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 36,000 36,000 33,150
General Expense 360 6,500 6,500 16,100
Rents and Leases 0 2,000 2,000 2,000
Allocated Charges 128,915 184,159 184,159 179,709
Capital Improvement Program 142,724 915,001 914,786 919,998
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,106,126 $2,186,197 $2,181,702 $2,229,957
TOTAL REVENUES $47,162 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.22
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012234
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
To provide responsive customer service, advance customer relations, implement energy efficiency programs, and ensure revenue is
available to cover financial obligations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,621,950 1,501,444 1,517,484 1,578,215
Contract Services 25,771 77,070 77,070 58,800
Supplies and Materials 57,859 49,070 49,070 53,170
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 1,280 1,280 1,280
General Expense 49,870 25,680 25,680 129,850
Allocated Charges 141,502 42,368 42,368 37,752
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,896,952 $1,696,912 $1,712,952 $1,859,067
TOTAL REVENUES $(24,674) $55,520 $55,520 $55,520
Total Full Time Positions 11.10 11.36 11.36 11.36
Total Temporary Positions 1.40 1.67 1.67 1.87
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
235
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
To design, construct, operate, maintain, and improve the Electric Distribution System to ensure adequate, safe, economic,
reliable, environmentally sound, and efficient delivery of service to our customers.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 5,735,517 6,275,081 6,383,279 6,581,262
Contract Services 1,649,510 2,097,419 2,092,419 2,078,075
Supplies and Materials 451,958 551,788 551,788 551,788
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,930 42,800 42,800 36,475
General Expense 10,866 48,250 48,250 139,594
Rents and Leases 156,710 255,075 345,075 339,400
Allocated Charges 1,156,150 1,268,778 1,268,778 1,321,087
Capital Improvement Program 9,236,606 9,170,000 9,308,607 7,765,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $18,410,247 $19,709,191 $20,040,996 $18,812,681
TOTAL REVENUES $1,340,485 $973,210 $1,008,293 $1,748,210
Total Full Time Positions 75.56 74.82 74.82 74.93
Total Temporary Positions 1.23 1.20 1.20 1.18
Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012236
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM)
To fund and implement programs, consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 1890, in the areas of demand-side management,
research development and demonstration, renewable resources, and low income assistance.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 712,343 654,678 662,357 822,081
Contract Services 648,303 936,950 936,950 839,500
Supplies and Materials 16,138 27,350 27,350 26,150
General Expense 2,496,866 1,373,165 1,373,165 1,918,015
Allocated Charges 21,153 3,000 3,000 3,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,894,803 $2,995,143 $3,002,822 $3,608,746
TOTAL REVENUES $3,304,667 $3,095,142 $3,095,142 $3,092,000
Total Full Time Positions 5.05 4.70 4.70 5.85
Total Temporary Positions 0.78 0.72 0.72 0.72
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Electric Fund
237
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
To preserve a supply cost advantage compared to the market price and to develop and manage electric commodity services to the
benefit of the ratepayers, citizens, and businesses in Palo Alto.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 68,713,475 74,078,000 74,078,000 69,846,000
Salaries and Benefits 1,504,378 1,151,944 1,193,234 1,181,897
Contract Services 873,572 1,010,312 1,054,752 1,177,125
Supplies and Materials 12,735 45,750 45,750 36,390
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 4,000 4,000 4,000
General Expense 120,305 1,680,250 1,680,250 1,866,500
Allocated Charges 522,440 207,637 207,637 268,178
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $71,746,905 $78,177,893 $78,263,623 $74,380,090
TOTAL REVENUES $7,587,581 $8,080,000 $8,080,000 $6,877,940
Total Full Time Positions 8.05 5.85 5.85 6.60
Total Temporary Positions 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012238
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 239
Fiber Optics Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
240 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 241
Fiber Optics Fund
Fiber Optics Fund
To provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City.
OVERVIEW
Launched in 1996, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Commercial Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund designs,
constructs, and operates a "dark fiber optic" network system providing service to the Palo Alto business
community.
Dark fiber optics service is characterized as the fiber optics cabling, splice points, service connections and
other infrastructure providing high-capacity bandwidth needed to transport large quantities of data. It
does not include the transmitters, receivers, or data itself, which are owned and operated by each customer.
The CPAU Fiber Optics system was originally composed of a 40.6-mile "dark fiber optics backbone ring"
within Palo Alto, to which individual customers were connected via fiber optics "service connections.” Fiber
Optics customers include businesses, schools, home-based businesses and telecommunication service
resellers. Several City departments and sections of City government also use the fiber optics network,
including the libraries, the Foothills Park Interpretive Center, the traffic signal network, and the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant. New fiber optic customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the
fiber optics backbone.
In 1996, the Electric Enterprise Fund provided initial financial resources to the fledgling enterprise in the
form of loans for capital (infrastructure) and operating expenses. These funds were used to construct the
fiber optics backbone within the City. At the end of FY 2008, the fiber optics business completed the loan
repayment to the Electric Enterprise Fund for all capital and operating expenses from the beginning of the
project. A separate Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund, capable of maintaining its own capital and operating
budgets and financial operating reserve, was also created.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the CPAU Fiber Optics staff continued to concentrate on connecting new customers
and expanding service to existing customers. The City's competitive construction and monthly access
pricing has continued to drive customer growth, with a FY 2012 projected annual revenue of $3.3 million,
an increase of approximately 10% over FY 2011. As with any maturing industry, customers both enter and
leave the system for a variety of business reasons. The long-term effects of the breadth and depth of the
current economic downturn on the Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund are still unknown, but CPAU fiber optics
service for current and potential customers remains highly competitive.
Infrastructure Reliability- Engineering and Operations
Utility operations staff monitors the integrity of the system and makes any necessary repairs. A Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) is funded annually for the replacement of system components that have
reached the end of useful life, and for backbone enhancements based on customer demand for services.
Included in the project are increases in system capacity, development of fiber sub-rings, and general
improvements to the fiber system to meet growing customer needs for increased bandwidth. CPAU tries to
limit construction impacts on the community by using pre-existing conduit and poles.
Connections to the backbone at individual splice points are performed under a different CIP as required for
customer fiber optic service and are paid by customers.
Customer Service and Marketing
During FY 2012, operating revenue and number of service connections are projected to increase by 10%
over FY 2011. In FY 2011, the number of service connections grew by 5.5% over FY 2010 levels. Continuous
improvements are also being made to CPAU fiber optic business processes to reduce customer cost-to-
Fiber Optics Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012242
connect, provide new payment options, streamline and improve sales and construction efforts, and better
coordinate internal processes to increase overall efficiency.
Rates and Reserves
New customers take service under Fiber Optics Rate Schedule EDF-3, based on the most recently completed
cost of service study. Some existing customers with earlier, unexpired agreements take service under Fiber
Optics rate Schedule EDF-1, the cost of which is adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index.
A Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) was established in FY 2009 with guidelines for
minimum and maximum reserve levels. The Fiber Optics RSR level is projected to be $11.0 million for FY 2012.
These levels are above the RSR maximum guideline level of $1.7 million for FY 2012.
By providing competitively-priced fiber optic access to commercial customers, customers are retained within
the City, economic development efforts are enhanced, and the City is able to maintain a valuable community
asset.
PROGRAM UPDATE
In FY 2011, marketing efforts have brought the total number of customers to 68, with service provided through
approximately 173 individual connections.
In FY 2012, CPAU is projected to connect new customers on a timely and industry-competitive basis as
operations and engineering functions allow, with sales and marketing targeted to increase both system
utilization and revenues. Areas projected for the greatest growth opportunities include the medical and
educational market sectors.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 2,314,269 2,303,850 2,303,850 2,608,959 305,109
Interest Income 486,727 268,400 268,400 309,800 41,400
Other Income 791,267 740,039 740,039 740,039 0
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $3,592,263 $3,312,289 $3,312,289 $3,658,798 $346,509
Administration 599,689 1,081,215 1,088,850 894,977 (193,873)
Planning, Marketing, and Contracts 320,670 217,293 218,723 207,881 (10,842)
Operations and Maintenance 366,446 442,340 447,176 432,944 (14,232)
Customer Design and Construction (CIP)131,092 399,999 399,556 500,000 100,444
Rent 14,268 14,268 14,268 25,453 11,185
Operating Transfers Out 12,951 8,337 8,337 9,662 1,325
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $1,445,116 $2,163,452 $2,176,910 $2,070,917 $(105,993)
TO/FROM RESERVES $2,147,147 $1,148,837 $1,135,379 $1,587,881 $452,502
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fiber Optics Fund
243
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 773,043 971,311 982,215 927,655
Contract Services 120,388 164,800 164,800 157,800
Supplies and Materials 0 18,000 18,000 18,000
General Expense 5,760 19,000 19,000 25,000
Rents and Leases 16,191 15,268 15,268 27,453
Allocated Charges 385,691 566,737 569,734 405,347
Capital Improvement Program 131,092 399,999 399,556 500,000
Operating Transfers Out 12,951 8,337 8,337 9,662
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,445,116 $2,163,452 $2,176,910 $2,070,917
Total Full Time Positions 5.08 6.73 6.73 6.48
Total Temporary Positions 0.46 0.94 0.94 0.94
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of Customers (SEA)47 68 70
2. Service Connection Fiber Miles (SEA)196 190 193
3. Dollar amount of gross sales revenue $3,100,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Fiber Optic RSR 9,406 1,588 10,994 670 - 1,675
TOTAL RESERVES $10,406 $1,588 $11,994
Fiber Optics Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012244
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Salary adjustments are primarily due to a net decrease of 0.25 FTE which includes various reallocations
to/from other funds.
Note 3: Personnel benefit costs have decreased mainly due to a net decrease of 0.25 FTE and a decrease in
retirees’ premiums by the City.
Note 4: Projected CIP expenditures for the Fiber Optics Fund are $500,000 in FY 2012.
Note 5: Decrease in allocated charges is due to a decrease in cost plan charges.
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Increase net sales 305 305
Increase interest income 41 41
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $346 $0 $346
Adjustments (Note 1)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $346 $0 $346
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Salary adjustments (Note 2) (31)(31)
Personnel Benefits Costs Decrease (Note 3) (25)(25)
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(56) $0 $(56)
Adjustments (Note 1)
Net Salary and Benefits Changes $(56) $0 $(56)
Non-Salary
Decrease operating transfer to Capital Projects Fund (8)(8)
Increase operating transfer to Technology Fund 9 9
Increase capital improvement program (Note 4) 102 102
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 5) (153)(153)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(50) $0 $(50)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(106) $0 $(106)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(106) $0 $(106)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Fiber Optics Fund
245
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Begun in 1996 and completed in 1998, the Fiber Optics Ring around the City completes the plan of the
Telecommunications Strategy Study of 1996. Funds are included in the CIP and Operating budgets to allow
customers splicing points to provide service. The fiber optic cable network has been installed in all the areas
planned in the original proposal. Completion of work at splicing points is being done as required to provide
service to customers. System enhancements and extensions are incrementally added based on customer
demand for services. In FY 2006, CPAU implemented a simpler rate structure to improve customer service and
enhance revenues. In FY 2012, staff will continue to enhance marketing efforts for the Fiber Optic services.
(Program B-4)
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012246
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 247
Gas Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
248 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 249
Gas Fund
Gas Fund
To provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City.
OVERVIEW
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Gas Fund plans to focus on: increasing
infrastructure reliability, marketing of energy efficiency programs and maintaining an excellent safety
record.
Infrastructure Reliability
Capital projects planned in FY 2012 include the design phase of Gas Main Replacement Projects 19B, 20
and 21 (more information may be found in the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Budget document). The
construction phase of Gas Main Replacement Project 18/19A will continue in FY 2012 to replace leaking,
inadequately sized, and structurally deficient Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) gas mains and services,
ongoing system improvements and upgrades, and installation of services and meters for new customers.
Construction of the replacement of all four Gas Receiving Stations will be completed in the 1st quarter of FY
2012.
Supply
Staff is guided by the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) objectives, strategies, and implementation plan,
which was revised with Council approval in March 2011. The primary objectives of GULP are to balance
supply cost stability with market price exposure, lower the cost of gas, and maximize the deployment of
cost-effective gas energy efficiency. In response to the extreme volatility of gas prices and feedback from
customers regarding a preference for stable rates, staff developed a commodity-hedging program that
aims to stabilize costs for residential and small commercial customers. Council has approved Gas Enabling
Master Agreements with several suppliers that allow the City to diversify credit risk and to receive
competitive prices on gas purchases.
In FY 2011, staff evaluated expanding the voluntary green energy program, PaloAltoGreen, to include gas.
Non-fossil gas resources were evaluated for this program, but were determined to be too costly. Staff also
evaluated purchasing greenhouse gas emissions offsets to support a voluntary green gas program, but this
was also determined to be too costly and not likely to be easily marketed. In FY 2012, according to the
updated GULP objectives and strategies, staff will continue examining non-fossil gas alternatives. Staff will
also seek economical gas storage opportunities that allow the purchase of additional gas in the summer for
withdrawal from storage in the higher-priced winter season. Finally, staff seeks to evaluate the potential for
and complexities of entering into a long-term contract to pre-purchase gas at a discount. This evaluation
will be closely coordinated with the Risk Manager.
A five-year laddering strategy has been utilized to guide the gas purchasing strategy. This strategy has kept
natural gas rates relatively stable despite the rapid upward and downward swings in natural gas and oil
prices. However, in FY 2012 the laddering strategy will be re-examined as gas prices have fallen
precipitously since mid-2008 and many experts expect low gas prices to persist well into the future.
Marketing and Customer Service
Natural gas efficiency is viewed as an alternative to purchasing gas supply. This will expand the breadth of
natural gas efficiency programs that can be offered to Palo Alto customers. The new solar water heating
rebate program encourages customers to use less natural gas by harnessing the heat of the sun for hot
water. Staff is researching additional efficiency programs to encourage customers to install and use more
efficient equipment, thus reducing consumption. In addition, 33 solar water heating systems have been
installed, with $55,763 paid in rebates. All but one of these systems were residential. An estimated 3,663
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012250
therms (as well as 5,400 kWh) have been saved annually with these systems. In addition, a total of 106,479
therms were saved in first-year savings. This savings rate is equal to 0.36% of natural gas sales.
The Council set ten-year gas energy efficiency goals in 2007 to reduce gas use by 3.2% by 2017. Staff has
proposed updated gas energy efficiency goals for a cumulative reduction in expected use of 5.5% by 2020. This
reduction is program-driven and must come on top of reductions that may naturally occur.
In spite of the availability of alternative suppliers in the deregulated market, the City's largest commercial and
industrial gas customers have remained steadfast buyers of natural gas from CPAU. Large customers can
choose between a market-based rate and a CPAU "contract" rate that locks in their usage at guaranteed prices
for either a 12-month or 24-month period. Staff provides critical market information on a weekly basis to help
customers make the best possible gas supply choices.
The table below shows CPAU's record thus far in meeting its annual gas reduction goals. Savings are shown as a
percentage of total retail sales.
Rates
No rate adjustment is proposed for FY 2012. The last rate adjustment occurred in FY 2010 which was a decrease
of 10 percent.
Reserves
Gas Rate Stabilization Reserves (RSRs) are maintained and managed in accordance with Council-approved
guidelines. The RSRs provide a cushion for sudden changes in commodity costs and other operating expenses.
The aim is to reduce the frequency of rate adjustments and absorb any sudden cost increases. The reserves are
not used to solve long-term financial needs or to address major catastrophic events. Rates are established such
that revenues adequately cover current operating, capital, and financial obligations. Reserves may be above
the maximum guideline level or below the minimum guideline level for a particular year as long as the levels
are projected to move back to between the minimum and maximum guideline levels over the five-year
financial forecast planning horizon.
In FY 2009, Council approved changes to the Gas RSR guidelines. Target reserve levels reflect the risk
assessment of the RSRs that must be performed annually according to the guidelines. Risks for the Gas Supply
RSR include exposure to market prices for gas, changes in sales volumes, and risks related to legislative and
regulatory initiatives. The target level for the Gas Distribution RSR is based on a risk assessment that includes
potential revenue shortfalls from declining sales and requirements for Capital Improvement Programs. In FY
2012, staff plans to re-evaluate the RSR guidelines and make a recommendation to the Utilities Advisory
Commission and Council.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
251
Without a gas rate change in FY 2012, the FY 2012 Budget results in a total reserve balance of approximately
$10.5 million. The Gas Supply RSR ending balance is projected to be approximately $8.2 million, which is above
the minimum guideline level of $ 4.7 million. The ending Distribution RSR is projected to be $0.4 million, which
is below the minimum guideline of $ 2.7 million. Staff believes that the projected Gas Supply RSR balance is
sufficient to meet the risk assessment requirement for FY 2012, but future supply-related rate increases may be
necessary if changes occur in the wholesale gas market. Withdrawals of Gas Distribution RSR funds have taken
place over the last several years to mitigate the increase in customer supply costs and additional expenses such
as allocated Workers' Compensation and retiree medical liabilities. However, staff will continue to evaluate the
Gas Distribution RSR balance on an ongoing basis.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
Environmental Sustainability
In December 2006, Council approved a resolution joining the International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives' (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, committing to undertake actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the community. Supporting this goal, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan
Objective #3 is to ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost-effective energy efficiency measures.
Consistent with the City's Climate Protection Plan, all of the Gas Fund's energy and demand-side management
programs and incentives contribute to the Council's Top Priority of Environmental Sustainability. Since the City
is also a top customer for these programs, the Utilities energy efficiency programs also contribute to Council's
priority for Economic Health, since City facilities costs are lowered.
Funding for supply-funded incentives and analysis will continue into FY 2012, as a result of state legislation
addressing energy efficiency and solar water heating. This supply funding is in addition to the already funded
Demand-side Management (DSM) programs. Funding for the DSM programs is based on 2.9 percent of annual
natural gas sales.
The City has been reporting the natural gas related greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2005-2009 to the
California Climate Action Registry and has earned the designation of "Climate Action Leader." Estimated
community-wide CO2 emission from CPAU-provided natural gas in 2009 was 162,000 metric tons (compared to
167,000 metric tons in 2008, 168,000 metric tons in 2007, 165,000 metric tons in 2006 and 166,000 tons in year
2005). City government operations use of natural gas was 5,282 metric tons in 2009 (compared to 5,984 metric
tons in 2008, and an estimated 5,504 metric tons in 2007, 3,953 metric tons in 2006 and 6,499 metric tons in
2005). The emissions variation is primarily due to natural gas used at the RWQCP and landfill gas collected and
used by the RWQCP.
In the Gas Fund, under the Council Priority relating to environmental sustainability, there are programs for both
residential and commercial customers. These programs and other new initiatives are described in detail in the
Utilities Chapter of the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, approved by Council in December 2007.
Residential programs promoting Environmental Sustainability in FY 2012 include:
• Smart Energy Program (includes rebates for ENERGY STAR® appliances, insulation, furnaces, and other
equipment)
• Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) for low income efficiency installations
• Refrigerator recycling program
• Home Energy Reports
• Compact Fluorescent Flood Light rebate program
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012252
• Light Emitting Diode (LED) holiday light exchange
• Green@Home energy audit with Blue Line Monitoring Systems
• PV Partners for Photovoltaic or solar electric installation rebate program
• Solar water heating rebates
• Community event sponsorship promoting participation in residential efficiency programs
• PAUSD Grant Program, $50,000 grant for efficiency education
• PaloAltoGreen-renewable energy supply source option
• New construction incentive program in coordination with the Planning department
Commercial programs promoting Environmental Sustainability in FY 2012 include:
• Commercial Advantage Program---rebates for many efficiency equipment installations
• Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program---large commercial focused audit and
implementation assistance
• PV Partners Program---solar electric rebates
• Right Lights+ Program---small commercial lighting, refrigeration, and controls installation
• Data Center efficiency program
• New Construction Incentives Program
• Meter Links website program---shows the commercial customer's prior-day load profile
• Efficiency Improvement Training---for City facilities staff and customers
• PLUG-In Program---ultra-clean small-scale distributed generation and cogeneration
•Financing program
• Third Party Review of Efficiency Programs---to ensure that savings are being appropriate evaluated,
measured, and verified, as required by Assembly Bill 2021
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
253
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 41,754,752 42,873,637 42,873,637 42,012,883 (860,754)
Interest Income 1,342,113 847,400 847,400 947,900 100,500
Other Income 3,653,520 1,930,097 1,965,582 1,870,797 (94,785)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $46,750,385 $45,651,134 $45,686,619 $44,831,580 $(855,039)
Administration 2,494,569 3,296,461 3,263,137 3,246,671 (16,466)
Resource Management
Purchases 22,529,316 24,595,362 24,595,362 19,396,913 (5,198,449)
Operations 695,820 1,425,405 1,407,683 1,280,621 (127,062)
Customer Support Services 1,133,695 1,248,787 1,259,890 1,336,569 76,679
Distribution System
Systems Improvement(CIP)4,442,271 7,624,999 7,598,991 7,111,001 (487,990)
Customer Design and Connection Services(CIP)554,541 699,999 705,034 710,001 4,967
Operations 4,208,462 4,166,503 4,194,297 8,140,570 3,946,273
Demand-side Management (DSM)428,263 851,522 851,669 942,094 90,425
Debt Service 505,195 946,613 946,613 947,952 1,339
Equity Transfer 5,300,000 5,304,000 5,304,000 6,006,000 702,000
Rent 320,371 215,371 230,371 230,236 (135)
Operating Transfers Out 406,561 614,475 614,475 198,177 (416,298)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $43,019,064 $50,989,497 $50,971,522 $49,546,805 $(1,424,717)
TO/FROM RESERVES $3,731,321 $(5,338,363) $(5,284,903)$(4,715,225) $569,678
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 22,529,316 24,595,362 24,595,362 19,396,913
Salaries and Benefits 4,090,078 4,638,380 4,654,702 4,634,615
Contract Services 504,735 1,021,270 1,021,270 4,849,980
Supplies and Materials 211,396 521,324 507,324 464,924
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,796 62,590 62,590 62,590
General Expense 1,181,141 657,951 672,750 914,141
Rents and Leases 397,654 325,781 339,982 340,646
Allocated Charges 2,883,380 3,976,753 3,948,429 3,909,865
Debt Service 505,195 946,613 946,613 947,952
Equity Transfer 5,300,000 5,304,000 5,304,000 6,006,000
Capital Improvement Program 4,996,812 8,324,998 8,304,025 7,821,002
Operating Transfers Out 406,561 614,475 614,475 198,177
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $43,019,064 $50,989,497 $50,971,522 $49,546,805
Total Full Time Positions 46.79 51.60 51.60 49.38
Total Temporary Positions 2.19 2.71 2.71 2.00
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012254
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Percent of class one gas leaks repaired within Department of
Transportation (DOT) Timelines of less then 4 hours 100% 100%100%
2. Miles of gas main replaced during year (SEA)666
3. Average purchase cost (per therm)$0.71 $0.69 $0.61
4. The Standard & Poor's revenue bond credit rating will be AA- or higher.AA- AAA AAA
5. Average wait time for customers calling the Customer Service Center 70 sec 90 sec 90 sec
6. Number of participants in the total Rate Assistance Program (RAP)1,300 1,500 1,300
7. Amount of annual assistance for RAP for Gas bills $80,000 $110,000 $150,000
8. Number of Gas Leaks found during yearly mobile/walking survey 57 <250 <250
9. Reading accuracy for meter reading 99.90 99.9 99.99
10. Therms saved by Energy Efficiency Programs- Residential 45,757 50,000 55,000
11. Therms saved by Energy Efficiency Programs- Business 60,722 65,000 65.000
12. Number of hot water solar systems (new)19 23 40
Efficiency:
1. Bank Drafting- Increase customer participation >25% >25%>25%
2. My Utilities Account- Increasing the participating customers to greater
than 10% of total N/A >10%>20%
Effectiveness:
1. The customer satisfaction rating from an outside rating agency, measured
against other California utilities will be equal to or greater than the state
average. The scale is from one to ten with ten being the highest. (SP-C1.1)
7.8 8.0 8.5
2. Citizen survey- percent rating gas utility good or excellent (SEA)80% 83%83%
3. Uncollectable Revenue (Write-Off) will be less than 0.20 percent of Fund
Net Revenue. (new)0.07% 0.12%0.13%
4. Reduce days lost due to workplace injury to 5 or less 2<5<5
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 10,048 (9,659)389 2,676 -5,353
Supply Rate Stabilization 3,215 4,944 8,159 4,665 - 9,330
Debt Service Reserve 952 0 952
TOTAL RESERVES $15,215 $(4,715)$10,500
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
255
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Decrease net sales (915)(915)
Increase interest income 100 100
Decrease other income (5)(5)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(820) $0 $(820)
Adjustments (Note 1)(35)(35)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(820) $(35)$(855)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Salary Adjustments (Note 2) (113)(113)
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (29)(29)
Personnel Benefits Costs Increase (Note 3) 151 151
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $9 $0 $9
Adjustments (Note 1)0
Net Salary and Benefits Changes $9 $0 $9
Non-Salary
Increase program and project consultants- demand-side management pro-
grams 100 100
Increase demand-side management incentives 50 50
Increase supply-funded energy efficiency incentives 100 100
Increase contract services for inspection of all sewer laterals (Note 4) 3,800 3,800
Decrease contract services (19)(19)
Decrease supplies and materials (42)(42)
Increase rate of return transfer to General Fund 702 702
Decrease gas commodity (5,198)(5,198)
Decrease capital improvement program (Note 5) (512)(512)
Decrease general expense (11)(11)
Increase bankcard service charges 50 50
Increase debt service 1 1
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 6) (201)(201)
Decrease operating transfer to Capital Projects Fund (15)(15)
Decrease operating transfer to Electric Fund (Note 7) (200)(200)
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 8) (39)(39)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(1,434) $0 $(1,434)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(1,425) $0 $(1,425)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(1,425) $0 $(1,425)
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012256
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Salary adjustments are primarily due to a net decrease of 2.22 FTEs which includes various reallocations
to/from other funds.
Note 3: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases for the pension component of the
benefits allocation.
Note 4: Increase in contract services for inspection of all 19,000 sewer laterals to identify and repair gas
pipelines that may have been inadvertently installed through sewer laterals.
Note 5: Projected CIP expenditures for the Gas Fund are $7.8 million in FY 2012.
Note 6: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the SAP upgrade/Utilities
billing system and the radio infrastructure replacement project.
Note 7: Decrease in transfers to Electric Fund reflects reimbursements made in FY 2011 for CIP EL-10008
Advanced Metering Infrastructure and CIP EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology.
Note 8: Decrease in allocated charges is primarily due to a decrease in communications charges from the
General Fund for utility alarm monitoring services provided by the Police Department.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Gas Fund Budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Changes in land use, the development of unimproved properties, and the redevelopment of existing sites
require the Gas Utility to adapt to meet the needs of the customers. While new customer growth remains
stable, requests for new and augmented gas service to customers continues. Funds are included in the CIP
Budget for the ongoing replacement of leaking, inadequately sized, and structurally deficient Acrylonitrile-
Styrene (ABS) gas mains and services as a first priority. By researching the maintenance and leak histories of the
mains in the gas distribution system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. (Programs L-79, L-
81)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Department will continue gas rate structures that encourage energy conservation and are in balance with
other rate-making objectives, such as providing competitive rates. Rates are set to achieve a balance between
actual service costs, market prices, and the goal of promoting conservation and efficient use. CPAU will
continue to provide an inverted (progressive) residential rate structure with a baseline service rate. This
structure applies ascending prices for rising usage levels. (Programs N-63, N-64, N-65, N-66)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
257
Efficiency measures for residential and commercial customers will continue to be promoted through a variety
of Utilities programs and services (N-9, N-44, N-48, N-67). Residential customers will continue to be informed of
the cost benefits of additional insulation, new generations of appliances, and efficient space and water heating
technologies. Commercial customers will have access to specialized consulting services, while residential
customers will see the launch of a new on-line energy survey tool to assist them in identifying additional
efficiency opportunities.
In February 2011, Council approved an updated Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) objectives and strategies,
which address purchasing strategies and energy efficiency investments. (Goal N-9, Policies N-44 and N-48,
Program N-67)
The Demand-side Management program continues to be offered to interested parties. Consultant contracts
have been executed and implementation details are being evaluated. Since June 1999 programs have been
marketed and progressively implemented. (Policy N-47)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The reliability of the distribution system continues to be a high priority. Utility staff will continue to focus on the
accelerated Gas Main Replacement Projects to rehabilitate the system. Approximately $6 million is included in
the Capital Budget in FY 2012 for this purpose. Funds are also included for customer system extensions. (Policy
C-9)
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Commercial customers have the option of "locking-in" natural gas supplies for fixed prices during 12-month or
24-month fixed terms. This allows price certainty for customer budgeting purposes. (Policies B-4, B-10)
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012258
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
To provide responsive customer service, advance customer relations, implement energy efficiency programs, and ensure revenue is
available to cover financial obligations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,016,357 1,110,113 1,121,216 1,140,408
Contract Services 26,064 63,200 63,200 48,700
Supplies and Materials 7,657 22,120 22,120 20,620
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 4,340 4,340 4,340
General Expense 20,549 4,700 4,700 82,900
Rents and Leases 0 210 210 210
Allocated Charges 63,068 44,104 44,104 39,391
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,133,695 $1,248,787 $1,259,890 $1,336,569
TOTAL REVENUES $62,080 $62,080 $62,080 $62,080
Total Full Time Positions 8.02 8.33 8.33 8.33
Total Temporary Positions 0.52 1.48 1.48 1.39
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
259
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
To plan, engineer, operate, maintain, and construct improvements to the Gas Distribution System that will provide our customers
with safe, economic and reliable service.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,350,575 2,616,455 2,639,249 2,839,300
Contract Services 145,849 160,990 165,990 3,924,200
Supplies and Materials 200,970 468,954 454,954 428,554
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,796 53,250 53,250 53,250
General Expense 915,481 37,660 52,459 93,850
Rents and Leases 77,283 110,200 124,401 125,200
Allocated Charges 505,508 718,994 718,994 691,216
Capital Improvement Program 4,996,812 8,324,998 8,304,025 7,821,002
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,205,274 $12,491,501 $12,513,322 $15,976,572
TOTAL REVENUES $506,925 $700,000 $700,000 $710,000
Total Full Time Positions 35.82 38.57 38.57 37.60
Total Temporary Positions 1.57 0.99 0.99 0.37
Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012260
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM)
To fund and implement demand-side and low-income assistance programs.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 16,846 20,381 20,528 20,953
Contract Services 196,935 391,000 391,000 431,000
Supplies and Materials 0 4,500 4,500 4,500
General Expense 211,821 435,641 435,641 485,641
Allocated Charges 2,661000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $428,263 $851,522 $851,669 $942,094
TOTAL REVENUES $69,750 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10
Total Temporary Positions 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.24
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Gas Fund
261
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
To preserve a supply cost advantage compared to the market and to develop and manage gas commodity services to the benefit of
the ratepayers, citizens, and businesses in Palo Alto.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 22,529,316 24,595,362 24,595,362 19,396,913
Salaries and Benefits 524,000 829,825 812,103 571,541
Contract Services 135,887 401,080 401,080 441,080
Supplies and Materials 2,769 25,750 25,750 11,250
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 5,000 5,000 5,000
General Expense 33,164 163,750 163,750 251,750
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $23,225,136 $26,020,767 $26,003,045 $20,677,534
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.80 4.60 4.60 3.35
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012262
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 263
Wastewater Collection Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
264 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 265
Wastewater Collection Fund
Wastewater Collection Fund
To provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City.
OVERVIEW
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Wastewater Collection Utility plans to focus on maintaining infrastructure reliability,
identifying problems in mains and service laterals through expanded use of video technology, and
maintaining its excellent safety record.
Consistent with the department-wide goal of focusing on reliability, staff will continue the design and
construction stages of several major capital improvement projects (CIP) based on the 1989 Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan (WWCMP) and 2004 WWCMP update. The Master Plan targeted top priority
work in its CIP recommendations. Over the past 20 years most of the top priority CIP work has been
completed.
In FY 2012, staff will continue overlapping the design and construction elements of rehabilitation and
augmentation projects. Specifically, construction will begin on Wastewater Collection System
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 22 and 23 towards the end of FY 2012 (more information may be
found in the FY 2012 Capital Budget document). Design will begin for Wastewater Collection System
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 24 and 25 with advertisement and construction occurring summer of
July 2013. Since current technology allows for the modeling of collection systems, the model will be used
to provide engineering staff with data for planning future CIP projects and Operations staff with
recommended operational strategies. This higher quality modeling analysis may reduce the need for future
CIP expenditures.
A contract to provide services to customers with sewer blockages will continue in FY 2012. This program
has resulted in better customer service and reduced overtime. Success of this program is thoroughly
evaluated using a survey of customers served by the contractor.
Rates
For the Wastewater Collection Utility, no revenue adjustment is proposed for FY 2012. However, rate
changes are proposed for July 1, 2011 to align rates with a 2010 cost of service analysis. The impact will be a
13% increase on residential customers and an offsetting decrease amount for commercial customers. Cost
of service analysis are done periodically to align utility revenues from each customer class with the cost of
providing service to that class.
Reserves
The Wastewater Collection Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) is maintained and managed in accordance with
Council-approved guidelines. The RSR provides a cushion for sudden changes in commodity costs and
other operating expenses, to reduce the frequency of rate adjustments, and absorb any sudden cost
increases. The reserves are not used to solve long-term financial needs or to address major catastrophic
events. Rates are established such that revenues adequately cover current operating, capital, and financial
obligations. Reserves may be above the maximum guideline level or below the minimum guideline level
for a particular year as long as the levels are projected to move back to between the minimum and
maximum over the five-year financial forecast planning horizon.
In FY 2009, Council approved changes to the Wastewater Collection RSR guidelines. Target reserve levels
reflect the risk assessment of the RSR, which must be performed annually. The target level for the
Wastewater Collection RSR is based on a risk assessment that includes potential revenue shortfalls from
declining sales and requirements for Capital Improvement Programs.
Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012266
Without a wastewater revenue adjustment in FY 2012, the Wastewater Collection RSR ending balance is
projected to be approximately $4.5 million, which is above the minimum guideline level of $2.2 million.
PROGRAM UPDATE
In order to improve service to our customers, the Department contracted with an outside vendor for
wastewater calls. Customer surveys assist in the monitoring of this contract to ensure continued customer
satisfaction. Implementation of this contract has allowed staff to increase activities in capital and operating
services, with favorable customer satisfaction results.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 14,458,205 14,482,563 14,482,563 14,484,913 2,350
Interest Income 674,011 444,900 444,900 479,700 34,800
Other Income 781,684 996,804 1,071,323 903,687 (167,636)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $15,913,900 $15,924,267 $15,998,786 $15,868,300 $(130,486)
Administration 1,351,110 1,494,036 1,460,514 1,521,806 61,292
Customer Support Services 239,335 268,621 271,250 266,266 (4,984)
Collection System
Treatment Plant Charges 6,519,346 7,499,360 7,499,360 7,953,638 454,278
Systems Improvement(CIP)2,490,969 3,799,999 3,811,927 3,934,000 122,073
Customer Design & Connection(CIP)249,584 330,000 332,716 340,001 7,285
Operations 2,216,590 2,708,869 2,753,936 2,818,058 64,122
Debt Service 67,357 129,266 129,266 129,316 50
Rent 114,536 114,536 114,536 106,038 (8,498)
Operating Transfers Out 168,445 567,415 567,415 97,930 (469,485)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $13,417,272 $16,912,102 $16,940,920 $17,167,053 $226,133
TO/FROM RESERVES $2,496,628 $(987,835) $(942,134)$(1,298,753) $(356,619)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Collection Fund
267
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 6,519,346 7,499,360 7,499,360 7,953,638
Salaries and Benefits 1,946,504 1,901,420 1,924,116 2,073,812
Contract Services 93,318 208,140 208,140 178,140
Supplies and Materials 167,818 231,470 231,470 221,870
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 500 500 500
General Expense 54,843 64,550 64,550 77,650
Rents and Leases 151,526 210,336 210,336 201,838
Allocated Charges 1,507,562 1,969,646 1,961,124 1,958,358
Debt Service 67,357 129,266 129,266 129,316
Capital Improvement Program 2,740,553 4,129,999 4,144,643 4,274,001
Operating Transfers Out 168,445 567,415 567,415 97,930
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $13,417,272 $16,912,102 $16,940,920 $17,167,053
Total Full Time Positions 24.68 26.43 26.43 27.35
Total Temporary Positions 1.46 2.11 2.11 2.30
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of miles of sewer lines cleaned/treated annually (SEA)136 101 101
2. Average wait time for customers calling the Customer Service Center 70 sec 90 sec 90 sec
3. The Standard & Poor's revenue bond credit rating will be AA- or higher AA- AAA AAA
Efficiency:
1. The percent of responses to notification of reportable incidents of sewer
overflow will be within 2 hours for 95 percent of the time 99% 100%100%
2. Bank Drafting- Increase customer participation >25% >25%>25%
3. My Utilities Account- increasing the participating customers to greater
than 10% of total N/A >10%>20%
Effectiveness:
1. Citizen survey- percent rating quality of sewer services good or excellent
(SEA)82% >83%>83%
2. Uncollectable Revenue (Write-Off) will be less than 0.20 percent of Fund
Net Revenue (new)0.07% 0.12%0.13%
Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012268
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 5,850 (1,299)4,551 2,156 - 4,311
TOTAL RESERVES $6,850 $(1,299)$5,551
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Increase interest income 35 35
Decrease other income (Note 2) (90)(90)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(55) $0 $(55)
Adjustments (Note 1)(75)(75)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(55) $(75)$(130)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Salary Adjustments (Note 3) 34 34
Personnel Benefits Costs Increase (Note 4) 185 185
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $219 $0 $219
Adjustments (Note 1)0
Net Salary and Benefits Changes $219 $0 $219
Non-Salary
Increase treatment plant charges 454 454
Decrease contract services (22)(22)
Decrease supplies and materials (10)(10)
Increase bankcard service charge 5 5
Decrease operating transfer to Capital Projects Fund (8)(8)
Decrease operating transfer to Refuse Fund (Note 5) (375)(375)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 6) (87)(87)
Increase capital improvement program (Note 7) 60 60
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 8) (10)(10)
Total Non-Salary Changes $7 $0 $7
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $226 $0 $226
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $226 $0 $226
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Collection Fund
269
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Change in other income is due primarily to a decrease in revenue from ground water discharge charges.
Note 3: Salary adjustments are primarily due to a net increase of 0.96 FTE which includes various reallocations
to/from other funds.
Note 4: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to a net increase of 0.96 FTE and increases for the
pension component of the benefits allocation.
Note 5: Decrease in transfer to Refuse Fund reflects one-time reimbursement in FY 2011 for CIP RF-10003
Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area.
Note 6: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the SAP upgrade/Utilities
billing system and the radio infrastructure replacement project.
Note 7: Projected CIP expenditures for the Wastewater Collection Fund are $4.2 million in FY 2012.
Note 8: Decrease in allocated charges is primarily due to a decrease in communications charges from the
General Fund for utility alarm monitoring services provided by the Police Department.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Wastewater Collection Fund Budget includes the following resources directed towards
implementing the programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
Changes in land use, the development of unimproved properties, and the redevelopment of existing sites
require the Wastewater Collection Utility to adapt to meet the needs of the customers. While new customer
growth remains stable, requests for new and augmented sewer service to customers continue. In addition,
existing sewer service laterals become cracked and broken by tree roots, ground movement, and third party
excavation damage, requiring replacement. (Program L-81)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Outreach programs with our customers, such as utility bill inserts, encourage safe and responsible ways to
maintain the customers’ sections of the sewer lines. (Policy N-21)
Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012270
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
To provide responsive customer service, advance customer relations, and ensure revenue is available to cover the Wastewater
Collection Fund’s financial obligations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 220,000 259,711 262,340 247,456
Supplies and Materials 1,635 8,910 8,910 8,910
General Expense 6,971 0 0 9,900
Allocated Charges 10,729 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $239,335 $268,621 $271,250 $266,266
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15
Total Temporary Positions 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.75
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Collection Fund
271
COLLECTION SYSTEM
To plan, engineer, construct, operate, and maintain improvements to the Wastewater Collection System that will provide our
customers with safe, economic, and reliable service.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 6,519,346 7,499,360 7,499,360 7,953,638
Salaries and Benefits 1,480,267 1,619,349 1,639,416 1,802,693
Contract Services 93,318 183,140 208,140 153,140
Supplies and Materials 166,183 222,560 222,560 212,960
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 500 500 500
General Expense 47,872 59,650 59,650 67,750
Rents and Leases 36,990 95,800 95,800 95,800
Allocated Charges 391,960 527,870 527,870 485,215
Capital Improvement Program 2,740,553 4,129,999 4,144,643 4,274,001
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $11,476,489 $14,338,228 $14,397,939 $15,045,697
TOTAL REVENUES $485,375 $730,000 $730,000 $740,000
Total Full Time Positions 22.53 24.28 24.28 25.20
Total Temporary Positions 1.34 1.11 1.11 1.55
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012272
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 273
Water Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
274 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 275
Water Fund
Water Fund
To provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City.
OVERVIEW
In Fiscal Year(FY) 2012, Palo Alto's Water Utility plans to focus on increasing infrastructure reliability and
responsiveness to meet the City's water supply needs during an emergency, maintaining high-quality and
reliable sources of water, updating water efficiency goals, and implementing water efficiency programs and
services.
Engineering and Operations
Capital projects planned in FY 2012 include the design and construction phases of water main replacement
projects to replace structurally deficient water mains; system improvements and upgrades for
underground vaults and above-ground water regulation facility locations; and continued installation and
upgrading of services and meters for customers. Specifically, work will begin on the design phase of Water
Main Replacement (WMR) Project 25, the construction phase of WMR Projects 23 and 24, seismic upgrades
including coating improvements of the existing water reservoirs and rehabilitation of the existing water
wells (more information may be found in the FY 2012 Capital Budget document). Additionally, construction
will continue on the El Camino Park water reservoir, well and pump station along with replacement of the
Mayfield Reservoir pump station.
To address the critical need for ensuring sufficient water supplies during emergency situations, the City of
Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) has accelerated the implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 Water
Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Study. This study was commissioned to evaluate ways to improve
the operation and reliability of the City's water distribution system, particularly during emergency
situations.
In 2007, Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and voters overwhelmingly approved a
ballot measure to use the space beneath El Camino Park for a new reservoir, pump station, and well. The
design and construction of the El Camino project is running concurrently with the design phase of the
other study-recommended projects.
Two new emergency wells were completed during FY 2011 along with the design of the El Camino
Reservoir/Pump Station/Well , Mayfield Reservoir Pump Station, condition assessment and rehabilitation
design for the existing reservoirs, and the condition assessment of the existing wells including
rehabilitation design. Significant funding increases appear in the FY 2012 budget.
Supply
Palo Alto's water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), has provided rate
projections indicating that the City's wholesale costs will steadily increase over the next seven years before
leveling off. The latest projections indicate that the wholesale rates will double in five years (by FY 2016).
This increase is due to the adopted construction program to repair and upgrade the SFPUC's regional water
delivery system. Palo Alto has supported these system improvements and has advocated for prompt
implementation of the SFPUC's Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). On October 30, 2008, the
SFPUC adopted the WSIP, and the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the WSIP. These major milestones for the WSIP indicate that the risks to
human health and safety from a major lengthy disruption of water supplies from the regional water system
are being addressed.
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012276
Although staff has concluded that SFPUC supplies are sufficient in normal water years, additional supplies are
needed in drought years. Other water supply options are therefore under evaluation.
In FY 2009, a Recycled Water Facilities Plan was completed. The plan identified a project to extend pipelines to
deliver recycled water to the Stanford Research Park area. Significant comments were received on a draft
environmental document for the project, and staff has determined that a more extensive evaluation of the
impacts of using recycled water on landscaping must be completed. Therefore, in FY 2011, preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was started regarding application of recycled water to landscaping. The EIR
is expected to be complete by the end of FY 2011. Utilities also worked with Public Works and the other
partners of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to improve the quality of the recycled water produced. In
FY 2010, a salinity reduction policy was adopted by Council to address this issue. Staff continues to monitor
salinity levels in an effort to identify any opportunities to improve the recycled water quality to make it more
acceptable for applications including landscape irrigation.
A significant barrier for the project is its high cost. To address this cost, staff is actively seeking outside funding
to make the project feasible and cost effective.
Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), an agency which
represents all the water agencies that purchase water from the SFPUC. SFPUC's adoption of the WSIP contained
a limitation on water sales from the regional water system. In response to this water supply limitation, the
potential for increasing efficiency programs is being re-assessed by BAWSCA. BAWSCA has completed a study
of water efficiency measures and is working with its member agencies to implement new efficiency programs.
Palo Alto actively participated in the development of the plan and began implementation of the plan's
recommended programs and projects in FY 2010. One of the efforts spearheaded by BAWSCA in FY 2010 was
the development of model ordinances for indoor and outdoor water use. After review of these ordinances, staff
recommended that Council approve local amendments to the CALGreen that included the landscape
requirements. Council approved this ordinance on December 13, 2010, and it went into effect in January 2011.
The new Water Supply Agreement, which took effect on July 1, 2009, did not contain a drought allocation plan
to divide the available water in the case of a water shortage among the BAWSCA agencies. An agreement was
reached in 2010, and in January 2011 Council adopted the compromise drought allocation plan. The plan will
go into effect in the event of a water shortage requiring water use reductions of up to 20% until 2018.
When the SFPUC adopted its capital program to repair and replace the regional water delivery system, it
decided to limit water deliveries until 2018. As required under the new Water Supply Agreement, in December
2010, the SFPUC determined how the limited water available to the BAWSCA agencies would be divided up
among them. Staff was actively involved with the process and advocated for establishing the amount for each
agency based on its long-term supply entitlement under the Water Supply Agreement. In mid-2011, the SFPUC
will establish a penalty rate for any usage over the water supply limitation.
Sales and Marketing
Water efficiency continues to play an important role in the goals for CPAU. The cost sharing water efficiency
contract with the Santa Clara Valley Water District was recently updated to continue the vast array of water
efficiency programs available to Palo Alto residential and commercial customers.
Rates
For the Water Utility, a new residential rate structure is being proposed that combines a flat rate to cover fixed
costs with increasing price tiers to encourage water use efficiency. As a result of cost-of-service studies
indicating CPAU needs to better recover its own fixed costs as well as to provide sufficient funds to cover CPAU's
share of the SFPUC infrastructure project costs, there will be an average rate increase of 12.5 percent effective
July 1, 2011.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Water Fund
277
Reserves
A Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) is maintained and managed in accordance with Council-approved
guidelines. The RSR provides a cushion for sudden changes in commodity costs and other operating expenses
to reduce the frequency of rate adjustments and absorb any sudden cost increases. The reserves are not used
to solve long-term financial needs or to address major catastrophic events. Rates are established such that
revenues adequately cover current operating, capital, and financial obligations. Reserves may be above the
maximum guideline level or below the minimum guideline level for a particular year as long as the levels are
projected to move back to between the minimum and maximum guideline levels over the five-year financial
forecast planning horizon.
In FY 2009, Council approved changes to the Water RSR guidelines. Target reserve levels reflect the risk
assessment of the RSRs, an assessment which must be performed annually according to the guidelines. The
target level for the Water RSR is based on a risk assessment that includes potential revenue shortfalls from
declining sales and requirements for Capital Improvement Programs.
With the proposed water rate change in FY 2012, the Water RSR ending balance is projected to be
approximately $11.2 million, which is above the minimum guideline level of $4.6 million.
PROGRAM UPDATE
In partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), CPAU is participating in several water
conservation "Best Management Practices" (BMP) programs. These programs enable Palo Alto to meet its water
conservation goals.
BMPs include residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional efficiency measures for domestic water use,
process use, and irrigation. Staff continues to look for ways to enhance marketing of these programs.
Mandatory water use restrictions were imposed by the SCVWD (but not by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, Palo Alto's water provider). The Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved a Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, which all water agencies were to either follow as approved or adopt a local ordinance at
least as efficient as the one adopted by DWR. After review of this ordinance, staff recommended that Council
approve local amendments to the CALGreen that included the landscape requirements. Council approved this
ordinance in December 2010, and it went into effect in January 2011.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
Environmental Sustainability
All of the Water Fund's demand-side management programs and incentives contribute to the Council's Top
Priority of Environmental Protection, and are consistent with the Green Ribbon Task Force's recommendations.
Since the City is also a top customer for these programs, water efficiency programs contribute as well to the
Council priority of "Economic Health," since City facilities and Parks costs are lowered when water use is
reduced.
The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan includes water reduction goals. Staff is currently updating the plan
for 2012; recommended goals are not yet available. The 2005 plan includes the expectation that conservation
programs will reduce water purchases from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) by 4% by the
year 2030.
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012278
The table below shows CPAU's record thus far in meeting its annual water reduction goals. Savings are shown
as a percentage of total retail sales.
Funding for the residential and commercial demand side management programs is based on 1.9 percent of
sales for FY 2012. Almost all of the programs include a cost sharing arrangement with the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD) which significantly reduces program costs for CPAU.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 24,540,697 27,248,635 27,248,635 29,366,280 2,117,645
Interest Income 1,571,599 1,050,100 1,050,100 970,600 (79,500)
Other Income 2,645,359 3,017,368 3,074,144 2,858,717 (215,427)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $28,757,655 $31,316,103 $31,372,879 $33,195,597 $1,822,718
Administration 2,167,896 2,675,346 2,673,503 2,523,981 (149,522)
Resource Management
Purchases 9,061,245 12,043,289 12,043,289 15,773,672 3,730,383
Operations 485,728 659,722 663,758 667,113 3,355
Customer Support Services 1,371,943 1,669,514 1,681,600 1,814,811 133,211
Distribution System
Systems Improvement(CIP)8,607,138 8,438,000 8,442,844 4,449,000 (3,993,844)
Customer Design and Connection Services(CIP)335,934 410,001 412,185 420,000 7,815
Operations 4,520,132 5,275,180 5,300,100 5,830,859 530,759
Debt Service 1,589,380 2,980,984 2,980,984 3,338,027 357,043
Rent 2,107,405 2,107,405 2,122,405 2,156,887 34,482
Operating Transfers Out 281,764 441,511 441,511 120,639 (320,872)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $30,528,565 $36,700,952 $36,762,179 $37,094,989 $332,810
TO/FROM RESERVES $(1,770,910) $(5,384,849) $(5,389,300)$(3,899,392) $1,489,908
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Water Fund
279
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 9,061,245 12,043,289 12,043,289 15,773,672
Salaries and Benefits 4,902,848 5,205,933 5,246,975 5,338,685
Contract Services 311,139 754,101 754,101 739,956
Supplies and Materials 351,588 491,300 491,300 460,700
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,365 5,610 5,610 7,610
General Expense 286,919 358,557 358,557 435,202
Rents and Leases 2,186,148 2,206,631 2,221,631 2,895,713
Allocated Charges 2,612,097 3,365,035 3,363,192 3,115,785
Debt Service 1,589,380 2,980,984 2,980,984 3,338,027
Capital Improvement Program 8,943,072 8,848,001 8,855,029 4,869,000
Operating Transfers Out 281,764 441,511 441,511 120,639
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $30,528,565 $36,700,952 $36,762,179 $37,094,989
Total Full Time Positions 44.16 44.06 44.06 44.00
Total Temporary Positions 2.63 2.87 2.87 1.81
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Average cost per 100 Cubic Feet (CCF)$1.69 $2.00 $2.74
2. The Standard & Poor's revenue bond credit rating will be AA- or higher AA- AAA AAA
3. Reading accuracy for meter reading will be equivalent or higher than
industry standards 99.90% 99.90%99.90%
4. Number of Water Surveys for Single-and- Multi Family Residential
Customers, Single Family (SF) Audits 278 300 315
5. Number of Water Surveys for Single-and- Multi Family Residential
Customers , Multi-Family (MF) Audits 62 65 70
6. Average wait time for customers calling the Customer Service Center 70 sec 90 sec 90 sec
Efficiency:
1. A comparison of the annual CPAU water system losses (unaccounted-for
losses) will be less than the BMP (Best Management Practice) guideline of
the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) of under 10%.
6.8% 8.2%<10%
2. Bank Drafting- Increase customer participation >25% >25%>25%
3. My Utilities Account- increasing the participating customers to greater
than 10% of total N/A >10%>20%
Effectiveness:
1. The customer satisfaction rating from an outside rating agency, measured
against other California utilities will be equal to or greater than the state
average. The scale is from one to ten with ten being the highest. (SP-C1.1)
7.8 8.0 8.5
2. Citizen survey- percent rating water utility good or excellent (SEA)84% 83%83%
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012280
3. The percent of water main breaks responded to within one hour will be 95
percent or greater. (revised due to data availability)97% 100%100%
4. Compliance with all required California Department of Health Services and
EPA testing for water quality will be 100 percent. This indicates that the
Water System Operators (Class 5) have a perfect record. (SEA)
97% 100%100%
5. Uncollectable Revenue (Write-Off) will be less than 0.20 percent of Fund
Net Revenue.0.07% 0.12%0.13%
6. Reduce days lost due to workplace injury to 5 or less 0<5<5
7. Percent of Key/Major/Institutional customers contacted each quarter will
be equal to 95%.95% 95%95%
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 15,148 (3,899)11,249 4,614 -9,229
Debt Service Reserve 3,348 0 3,348
TOTAL RESERVES $19,496 $(3,899)$15,597
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Increase net sales (Note 2) 1,961 1,961
Decrease interest income (80)(80)
Decrease other income (Note 3) (5)(5)
Decrease federal reimbursements (Note 4) (5)(5)
Increase in operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund (Note 5)8 8
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $1,871 $8 $1,879
Adjustments (Note 1)(57)(57)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $1,871 $(49)$1,822
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Water Fund
281
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Increase in net sales includes average rate increase of 12.5%.
Note 3: Decrease in other income is primarily due to a decrease in revenue from connection charges.
Note 4: Decrease in federal reimbursements for partial subsidy of interest payments on water bonds.
Note 5: Refund of accumulated replacement charges that had been paid to the Vehicle Replacement and
Maintenance Fund for vehicles/equipment that have now been removed from service and will not be replaced.
Note 6: Salary adjustments are primarily due to a net decrease of 0.06 FTE which includes various reallocations
to/from other funds.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Salary Adjustments (Note 6) (84)(84)
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (43)(43)
Personnel Benefits Costs Increase (Note 7) 239 239
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $112 $0 $112
Adjustments (Note 1)0
Net Salary and Benefits Changes $112 $0 $112
Non-Salary
Increase water commodity 3,730 3,730
Increase in program and project consultants for water conservation programs 50 50
Decrease in contract services (35)(35)
Decrease in supplies and materials (31)(31)
Increase bankcard service charges 50 50
Increase equipment rental for lease of emergency generators for water pumps 640 640
Increase debt service 357 357
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 8) (113)(113)
Decrease operating transfer to Capital Projects Fund (8)(8)
Decrease operating transfer to Electric Fund (Note 9) (200)(200)
Decrease capital improvement program (Note 10) (4,006)(4,006)
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 11) (213)(213)
Total Non-Salary Changes $221 $0 $221
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $333 $0 $333
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $333 $0 $333
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012282
Note 7: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases for the pension component of the
benefits allocation.
Note 8: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the SAP upgrade/Utilities
billing system and the radio infrastructure replacement project.
Note 9: Decrease in transfers to Electric Fund reflects one-time reimbursements in FY 2011 for CIP EL-10008
Advanced Metering Infrastructure and CIP EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology.
Note10: Projected CIP expenditures for the Water Fund are $4.9 million in FY 2012.
Note 11: Decrease in allocated charges is due primarily to decreases in cost plan charges and utilities
administration charges.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
In FY 2010, a construction program was added for both residential and business customers. The incentive
program is in coordination with the City's Green Building Ordinance and is being combined with permit
applications for 2011. The combination of applications should increase the number of applicants to the rebates
on an ongoing basis.
In development are a variety of new ordinances and programs to increase water conservation in the City of Palo
Alto and achieve a 20% reduction in per capita water usage by 2020. Included in this list of new ordinances and
programs are an updated landscape efficiency water ordinance, an indoor water ordinance, and a gray water
ordinance. The landscape efficiency ordinance requirements are adopted as part of the CALGreen building
code. Also in development are enhanced programs for high efficiency toilet and washing machine rebates. The
education program continues to be positively received, with new classes on landscape design and water
conservation offered each year. The 2011 Urban Water Management Plan update will also address the
mandated 20% reduction by 2020.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The FY 2012 Water Fund Budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
The Utilities Department is designing above-ground equipment placement to minimize visual impact.
Compact designs for backflow preventers are included in City backflow standards. (Program L-81)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
All of the Water Fund's demand-side management programs and incentives contribute to the Council's Top 5
Priority of Environmental Protection and are consistent with the Green Ribbon Task Force's recommendations
as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan. There are programs for both residential and commercial customers
that include a cost sharing arrangement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). Santa Clara Valley
Water District continues to work on identifying groundwater recharge areas in Palo Alto.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Water Fund
283
Additionally, CPAU staff continues to work with the State Department of Health Services to identify
improvements necessary to the City's wellhead protection program. Five proposed projects are included in the
Capital budget to address the recommendations of the Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System
Study (the study was completed in December 1999). The five projects will rehabilitate existing wells and
construct three new wells. Also, a new water reservoir and pump station will be constructed to provide
emergency supplies for an eight-hour period. More specifically, funding is included in the Capital budget to
begin the design and construction of a new 2.5 million-gallon reservoir and pump station, three new wells, the
rehabilitation of up to five existing wells, and the rebuild of the Mayfield Pump Station. Utilities staff continues
to look for opportunities to work with the District to examine alternate pipeline connections that would
improve supply reliability at a reasonable cost. (Program N-22)
Council's Sustainability Policy supports the development of recycled water, specifically in the Policy's statement
to "reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner while striving to protect and enhance the
quality of the air, water, land, and other natural resources." A program addresses the use of recycled water by
converting existing potable water users to recycled water for irrigation when available. (Goal N-4, Program N-
26)
Consistent with Council policy, CPAU will continue exploring expanded use of recycled water in Palo Alto. The
Council has supported this goal by its approval of the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) Guidelines in
December 2003 [CMR: 547:03], specifically, WIRP Guideline #3: Actively participate in development of cost-
effective regional recycled water plans. Staff has completed a market survey and a facilities plan for expanding
the recycled water distribution system in Palo Alto. The environmental document is expected to be complete
by the end of FY 2011. After that, depending upon the project cost and grant and loan funding availability,
design and construction phases may begin. (Goal N-4)
As federal, state, and other agencies promulgate new policies and standards for water efficiency, the City
incorporates these measures into applicable codes, regulations, and procedures, where practical. The City has
adopted City Code provisions for water efficiency standards applicable to commercial landscaping (Ordinance
4162). Also, Utility Rules and Regulations prohibit water waste. (Goal N-4)
Residential water rate structures continue to reflect conservation pricing in the form of an inverted rate
structure, which applies ascending prices for rising usage levels. (Program N-23)
The City has adopted California Urban Water Conservation Council's "Best Management Practices" (BMPs). The
Utilities Department has contracted with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for assistance in increasing
penetration of BMP measures in Palo Alto. (Policy N-20) Regulation and education have taken the place of
incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. Our ongoing
effort to implement this policy in the commercial market sector through the City's "Landscape Water Efficiency
Standards" is being expanded to include residential construction, in order to be at least as effective as the
Department of Water Resources model landscape efficiency ordinance. (Programs N-24 and N-28)
Water utility personnel continue to be active participants in Green Building charettes and design efforts for the
proposed Mitchell Park Library. (Policy N-20, Program N-24) CPAU works with businesses and schools to
implement energy efficiency programs and rebates aimed at saving valuable water resources as well as
creating a benefit to businesses. (Policy N-20)
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012284
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
To develop and manage water commodity resources to the benefit of the ratepayers, citizens, and businesses in Palo Alto.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 9,061,245 12,043,289 12,043,289 15,773,672
Salaries and Benefits 257,210 339,072 343,108 354,463
Contract Services 28,756 102,500 102,500 73,100
Supplies and Materials 0 3,250 3,250 2,950
General Expense 199,762 214,900 214,900 236,600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,546,973 $12,703,011 $12,707,047 $16,440,785
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.15 1.75 1.75 1.75
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Water Fund
285
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
To provide responsive customer service, advance customer relations, implement resource efficiency programs, and insure revenue
is available to cover Water Fund financial obligations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,028,602 1,141,599 1,153,685 1,184,596
Contract Services 238,215 419,359 419,359 454,459
Supplies and Materials 1,636 8,790 8,790 8,890
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 2,860 2,860 2,860
General Expense 42,380 70,532 70,532 137,632
Rents and Leases 0 126 126 126
Allocated Charges 61,110 26,248 26,248 26,248
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,371,943 $1,669,514 $1,681,600 $1,814,811
TOTAL REVENUES $58,400 $58,400 $58,400 $58,400
Total Full Time Positions 8.02 9.13 9.13 9.13
Total Temporary Positions 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.91
Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012286
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
To plan, engineer, operate, maintain, and construct improvements to the water distribution system that will provide customers
with safe, economic, and reliable service.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,432,283 3,591,655 3,616,575 3,665,552
Contract Services 44,168 232,242 232,242 212,397
Supplies and Materials 349,952 479,260 479,260 448,860
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,365 2,750 2,750 4,750
General Expense 44,777 64,825 64,825 60,970
Rents and Leases 78,743 99,100 114,100 753,700
Allocated Charges 567,844 805,348 805,348 699,630
Capital Improvement Program 8,943,072 8,848,001 8,855,029 4,869,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $13,463,204 $14,123,181 $14,170,129 $10,714,859
TOTAL REVENUES $825,733 $1,301,798 $1,301,798 $1,304,601
Total Full Time Positions 33.99 33.18 33.18 33.12
Total Temporary Positions 1.87 1.87 1.87 0.90
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 287
Refuse Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
288 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 289
Refuse Fund
Refuse Fund
To manage the solid, hazardous waste, and street sweeping programs to minimize waste generation and maximize recycling
not only to comply with all regulatory requirements but also to far exceed them in pursuit of the Zero Waste goals.
OVERVIEW
This past fiscal year has been one of transition for the Refuse Fund. In November 2010, Council approved a
plan to divert all curbside collected garbage and fill the landfill as fast as possible and to remove the ban on
accepting commercial waste at the landfill. All garbage and debris that were going to the Sunnyvale
Materials Recycling and Transfer (SMaRT) Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill are now being disposed at the
Palo Alto landfill. The Palo Alto landfill is expected to reach capacity and close sometime in FY 2012.
Capping of the landfill is expected to be completed by the end of calendar year 2013. Once the landfill is
closed, the activities needed to convert the landfill to parkland will begin. Staff is already conducting
preliminary work to underground gas and leachate wells in closed areas of the landfill in order to get those
areas opened to the public.
A rate increase was approved by Council in October 2010 in order to maintain adequate revenues in the
Refuse Fund, and reductions in expenses were made until staff returns to the Council with results of an
initial cost of services study for Refuse Fund activities. The current rate increase will expire in October 2011
unless it is reinstated or modified by Council prior to that date. In order to maintain adequate revenues,
staff anticipates recommending that Council continue the rate approved in October 2010, and may ask for
an additional increase. A continuation of the cost of services study will provide recommendations related to
future rates for residential, commercial and industrial customers. The results of the cost of services study
will likely require major changes to the current rate structure. As shown on the reserves table, the current
operating gap is $3.6 million, which needs to be addressed by a rate increase or other means
The City of Palo Alto proudly maintains one of the highest frequency sweeping schedules in the Bay Area.
Staff provides continued street sweeping service to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto to maintain
the aesthetic quality of the City's streets and neighborhoods and to meet federal, state, and local
requirements for pollution prevention.
Implementation of the Zero Waste Operational Plan continues. In FY 2012, staff will target specific sectors
(such as residential multi-family) for outreach and technical assistance. Support will continue for the very
successful school waste diversion efforts in order to ensure long term success, and staff will continue to
provide ongoing public education efforts in support of the zero waste services that are provided by
GreenWaste of Palo Alto. An improved zero waste website and a Facebook social media site were
introduced in FY 2011.
PROGRAM UPDATE
The focus of the Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) will be the phased-in implementation of required
recycling and composting services. This will be done in order to continue expanding the collection of
organic materials from commercial customers and recyclable materials from all customers.
Staff continues preparation for the closing of the landfill in FY 2012.
High-frequency street sweeping continues for residential and commercial areas.
Refuse Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012290
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
City Finances
• Rebuild the Refuse Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserve to a level that meets established guidelines and
ensure a balanced annual operating budget while establishing a stable annual revenue stream for the
fund. As part of this effort, refuse rates must be restructured to deal with declining refuse amounts and
the success of our Zero Waste programs.
Environmental Sustainability
• Evaluate alternatives for handling Palo Alto’s organic residuals (yard trimmings, food scraps and
wastewater solids). With the closure of Palo Alto’s landfill and current compost facility in late 2011 and
early 2012 respectively, the need to manage the City’s residuals becomes a key issue.
• Continue implementation of projects for the Zero Waste Operational Plan including requiring recycling
and composting services in residential and commercial sectors.
• Minimize hazardous waste in the City through collection of City-generated and household hazardous
waste.
• Minimize solid waste through waste reduction and recycling programs.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 24,924,611 25,502,182 27,383,182 23,946,652 (3,436,530)
Interest Income 336,783 300,600 300,600 300,600 0
Other Income 3,901,520 4,093,042 6,012,082 3,951,914 (2,060,168)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $29,162,914 $29,895,824 $33,695,864 $28,199,166 $(5,496,698)
Administration 1,499,181 1,600,644 1,594,859 1,691,880 97,021
Solid Waste
Systems Improvement(CIP)187,357 1,650,000 1,650,000 6,246,409 4,596,409
Operations 5,883,347 6,757,231 6,317,446 5,226,169 (1,091,277)
Collection, Hauling and Disposal
Payment to GreenWaste 12,477,838 14,797,178 13,200,000 13,000,000 (200,000)
Operations 4,115,217 4,803,472 4,455,524 4,635,275 179,751
Street Sweeping 2,019,070 2,057,396 2,079,401 2,056,592 (22,809)
Debt Service 607,530 607,897 607,897 623,170 15,273
Rent 4,288,747 4,288,747 4,288,747 4,288,747 0
Operating Transfers Out 353,517 337,872 326,433 90,966 (235,467)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $31,431,804 $36,900,437 $34,520,307 $37,859,208 $3,338,901
TO/FROM RESERVES $(2,268,890) $(7,004,613) $(824,443)$(9,660,042) $(8,835,599)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Refuse Fund
291
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 12,477,838 14,797,178 13,200,000 13,000,000
Salaries and Benefits 4,214,714 4,376,324 4,281,492 4,159,502
Contract Services 5,247,326 6,547,299 6,069,899 5,808,394
Supplies and Materials 210,030 310,846 161,046 140,600
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,300 15,900 8,000 10,400
General Expense 121,584 275,595 225,595 227,300
Rents and Leases 4,293,685 4,307,747 4,322,747 4,297,827
Allocated Charges 3,715,923 3,673,779 3,667,198 3,254,640
Debt Service 607,530 607,897 607,897 623,170
Capital Improvement Program 187,357 1,650,000 1,650,000 6,246,409
Operating Transfers Out 353,517 337,872 326,433 90,966
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $31,431,804 $36,900,437 $34,520,307 $37,859,208
Total Full Time Positions 36.47 36.81 36.81 36.71
Total Temporary Positions 1.11 1.16 1.16 2.26
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Rate Stabilization Reserve (5,285) (3,560)(8,845) 2,462 - 4,924
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
TOTAL RESERVES $(4,627) $(3,560)$(8,187)
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Liability 10,648 (6,100)4,548
TOTAL RESERVES AND FULLY-FUNDED LIABILITY $6,021 $(9,660)$(3,639)
OPERATING RESERVE (RSR, NET OF POSTCLOSURE CARE
LIABILITY OF $5.12 MILLION)$(165) $(3,560)$(3,725)
Refuse Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012292
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES (000)
Decrease net sales (Note 2) (3,747)(3,747)
Increase special revenue from GreenWaste (Note 3) 338 338
Decrease in disposal fee revenue (Note 4) (1,250)(1,250)
Increase in other revenue 185 185
Increase in operating transfer from parking districts for street sweeping 80 80
Decrease in operating transfer from Wastewater Collection Fund (Note 5) (375)(375)
Decrease in operating transfer from Capital Projects Fund (Note 6) (138)(138)
Decrease in operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund (Note 7)(590)(590)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(5,497) $0 $(5,497)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(5,497) $0 $(5,497)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES (000)
Salary and Benefits
Reclassify 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst (2)(2)
Add 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services 110 110
Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, Public Works Operations (18)(18)
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects 7 7
Landfill position to be removed at the end of December- 1.0 FTE Heavy Equip-
ment Operator- Lead (57)(57)
Landfill positions to be removed at the end of December- 2.0 FTE Heavy
Equipment Operator (106)(106)
Landfill positions to be removed at the end of December- 3.0 FTE Refuse Dis-
posal Attendant (122)(122)
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (128)(128)
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 8) 217 217
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(99) $0 $(99)
Adjustments (Note 1)123 123
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(99) $123 $24
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Refuse Fund
293
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Decrease in net sales reflects expiration of rate increases approved by Council in September, 2010. Also,
prior year budget amount was higher than expected actuals. Staff will return to Council with options for rate
adjustments in the summer of 2011.
Note 3: Under the hauling agreement with GreenWaste, the City receives all revenue that GreenWaste bills for
drop boxes and bin rentals.
Note 4: Decrease in revenue from disposal fee is due to the fewer loads at the City landfill which will be closing
during FY 2012.
Note 5: Decrease in operating transfer from the Wastewater Collection Fund represents reimbursement made
in FY 2011 for CIP RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area.
Note 6: Decrease in operating transfer from the Capital Projects Fund represents return of unused funds in FY
2011 for CIP PE-08005 Municipal Services Center Resurfacing Project, which has been completed.
Note 7: Decrease in operating transfer represents the refund of accumulated replacement charges that had
been paid to the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund for landfill and composting equipment that will
not be replaced due to the landfill closure in FY 2012. The refund was made in FY 2011.
Note 8: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases for the pension component of the
benefits allocation.
Non-Salary
Decrease in landfill closure/postclosure accrual (125)(125)
Decrease contract services (137)(137)
Decrease supplies and materials (20)(20)
Decrease rent- tools and equipment (25)(25)
Increase joint agency debt service- Palo Alto share of costs for upgrade at
SMaRT Station 15 15
Decrease GreenWaste contract - waste hauling agreement (200)(200)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 9) (69)(69)
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund (Note 10) (166)(166)
Increase capital improvement program (Note 11) 4,450 4,450
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 12) (408)(408)
Total Non-Salary Changes $3,315 $0 $3,315
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $3,216 $123 $3,339
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $3,216 $123 $3,339
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Refuse Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012294
Note 9: Changes in transfers to the Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the SAP upgrade/Utilities
billing system.
Note 10: Decrease in operating transfer to the General Fund represents the removal of a transaction that is no
longer applicable due to the change in waste hauling service providers from PASCO to GreenWaste in FY 2009.
The General Fund had been receiving a transfer from the Refuse Fund for PASCO’s use of the Geng Road
property.
Note 11: Projected CIP expenditures for the Refuse Fund are $6.1 million in Fiscal Year 2012. Funds of $6.1
million for CIP RF-11001 Landfill Closure will be funded by cash that has been accumulated to cover the landfill
closure liability.
Note 12: Decrease in allocated charges is due primarily to a decreases in vehicle/equipment charges,
wastewater charges, and interest on landfill rent.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
TRANSPORTATION
The Refuse Fund will continue performing off-road bicycle and pedestrian path sweeping on a regular basis
(Progam T-29). Staff will continue working with the Chamber of Commerce to enhance maintenance in the
downtown areas (Program T-30).
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Monthly household hazardous waste collection events will continue (Programs N-48 and N-50), and street
sweeping will be performed on a regular basis in the residential and business areas (Program N-30). Goal N-7
related to solid waste is addressed through recycling, composting, and through the rate structure.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Refuse Fund
295
SOLID WASTE
To provide solid waste disposal and recycling services including waste reduction and hazardous waste educational programs.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,758,817 2,855,776 2,751,091 2,615,698
Contract Services 1,309,267 1,853,243 1,725,843 1,295,850
Supplies and Materials 175,946 267,946 118,146 102,700
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 2,300 12,900 5,000 10,400
General Expense 120,940 243,220 193,220 194,425
Rents and Leases 4,938 15,000 15,000 5,000
Allocated Charges 1,511,139 1,509,146 1,509,146 1,002,096
Capital Improvement Program 187,357 1,650,000 1,650,000 6,246,409
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,070,704 $8,407,231 $7,967,446 $11,472,578
TOTAL REVENUES $1,996,776 $2,338,045 $3,468,045 $1,348,486
Total Full Time Positions 22.69 22.99 22.99 22.99
Total Temporary Positions 1.11 1.16 1.16 2.19
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of households serviced through Household Hazardous Waste
Program 4,753 4,500 4,500
Efficiency:
1. Percent of total households serviced through HHW program (26,048 from
2000 census)18% 17%17%
Effectiveness:
1. Tons of HHW diverted from illegal dumping 234 230 220
Refuse Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012296
COLLECTION, HAULING AND DISPOSAL
To provide environmentally safe, long-term refuse and recycling collection and disposal for residents and businesses at rates
competitive with surrounding areas.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Utility Purchases and Charges 12,477,838 14,797,178 13,200,000 13,000,000
Salaries and Benefits 152,595 173,395 175,447 194,710
Contract Services 3,875,702 4,616,012 4,266,012 4,435,000
Supplies and Materials 1,561 10,000 10,000 1,500
General Expense 274 1,425 1,425 1,425
Allocated Charges 85,085 2,640 2,640 2,640
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $16,593,055 $19,600,650 $17,655,524 $17,635,275
TOTAL REVENUES $1,208,296 $25,000 $25,000 $390,000
Total Full Time Positions 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. NEW: Percentage of missed collections by waste hauler annually..001 0 0
2. Tons of waste processed through SMaRT station 30,398 50,000 30,500
3. NEW: Per capita disposal rate- pounds per day (SEA)4.2 4.5 4.5
Effectiveness:
1. NEW: Number of inquiries received by City regarding waste hauler's
service 300 270 270
2. Tons of recyclables diverted from landfill 12,032 9,000 14,000
3. Percent of residents rating waste hauler's service as excellent (SEA)88% 90%90%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Refuse Fund
297
STREET SWEEPING
To keep City streets and parking lots free of debris with thorough and effective street sweeping and litter control.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,244,994 1,267,442 1,274,447 1,266,541
Contract Services 62,357 78,044 78,044 77,544
Supplies and Materials 32,523 32,900 32,900 36,400
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 0 3,000 3,000 0
General Expense 365 950 950 1,450
Rents and Leases 0 0 15,000 0
Allocated Charges 678,831 675,060 675,060 674,657
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,019,070 $2,057,396 $2,079,401 $2,056,592
TOTAL REVENUES $297,682 $178,243 $178,243 $257,985
Total Full Time Positions 12.08 12.08 12.08 11.98
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of residential and commercial curb miles swept (SEA)17,022 17,533 17,500
Efficiency:
1. Percent of residential and commercial curb miles swept (SEA)88% 92%92%
Effectiveness:
1. Cubic yards of residential and commercial debris removed from streets
(SEA)14,584 13,000 13,000
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012298
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 299
Storm Drainage Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
300 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 301
Storm Drainage Fund
Storm Drainage Fund
To operate, maintain, replace, and augment the storm drainage system to ensure adequate local drainage and storm water
quality protection for discharge to creeks and the San Francisco Bay.
OVERVIEW
Work in FY 2011 focused on the construction of the initial phase of the Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue
Storm Drain Improvements. Staff also completed another phase of the annual Storm Drain System
Replacement and Rehabilitation project and completed the design of a device to capture and remove trash
from the storm drain system in compliance with regulatory requirements.
In FY 2012, staff will continue to implement the enhanced storm drain program, which includes storm drain
maintenance, urban runoff pollution prevention, and storm drain system capital improvements. These
activities are funded by the storm drainage fee increase approved by property owners in April 2005. In
addition, engineering staff will focus on the construction of the second phase of the Channing Avenue/
Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements, which will be coordinated with the annual street maintenance
project and the continuing implementation of City-wide storm drain system repairs. These improvements
will convey storm water runoff more efficiently to the San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station,
completed in 2009, resulting in improved drainage system performance in northeastern Palo Alto. Staff will
also contract for the installation of the storm drain system trash capture device.
In order to reduce storm water runoff, staff will continue to conduct a rebate program for residents and
businesses that install rain barrels, cisterns, green roofs, and pervious pavement. Staff will continue to meet
with the Council-appointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee each year to review proposed operating and
capital budgets and to verify that fund expenditures are consistent with the approved ballot measure. The
Committee has noted that the fund will likely experience capital project funding shortfalls in the upcoming
years. The shortfalls are a result of the discrepancy between increased construction costs and the modest
storm drainage fee increases allowed by the ballot measure (based on annual increases in the local
Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 6 percent, whichever is less). A 1.5% fee increase is proposed for FY 2012,
based on the increase in the local Consumer Price Index. Although construction costs have recently
stabilized, past cost increases have raised project costs substantially above original estimates, and it is
unlikely that there will be sufficient funds to complete the original 12-year capital improvement program
outlined in the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee have developed strategies to maximize the use of
available funds, including focusing on completion of the highest priority projects and incrementally
reducing the scope of some projects in order to free up funds for other projects. Staff will continue to
monitor project costs and look for opportunities to utilize grants and other outside funding sources to pay
for the proposed drainage improvements.
Staff will continue to coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency on flood control and flood insurance issues. Staff will also assist with
review of land development applications to ensure compliance with storm water quality and stream
protection regulations. Staff will work with its partner agencies in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention program to implement the Bay Area-wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of storm water to local
creeks and the San Francisco Bay. The permit requires more rigorous and costly activities by municipal staff,
including implementation of updated best management practices, inspection and enforcement at
construction sites and commercial facilities, public outreach, installation of trash controls, and water quality
monitoring to protect storm water quality. In addition, staff will actively participate in the San Francisquito
Storm Drainage Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012302
Creek Joint Powers Authority's (JPA) design of flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek
between Highway 101 and San Francisco Bay, as well as the JPA's partnership with the US Army Corps of
Engineers to identify a comprehensive solution to creek and tidal flooding problems throughout the
watershed. Public Services division staff will continue to conduct an enhanced level of storm drain
maintenance which has been made possible by the storm drainage fee increase.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
Environmental Sustainability
• Staff will work with its partner agencies in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
program to implement a the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of storm water to local creeks and the San Francisco
Bay
• Staff will continue to conduct a rebate program for residents and businesses that install rain barrels,
cisterns, green roofs, and pervious pavement in order to reduce storm water runoff and water pollution
Emergency Preparedness
• Staff will continue to maintain the online Creek Monitor, coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to provide sand bags to the public, and work with the Fire Department, Police Department, and
the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and its member agencies to coordinate
emergency preparedness efforts related to flood emergencies
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 5,284,155 5,450,531 5,450,531 5,536,376 85,845
Interest Income 167,603 158,950 158,950 148,400 (10,550)
Other Income 363,099 123,345 448,029 141,970 (306,059)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $5,814,857 $5,732,826 $6,057,510 $5,826,746 $(230,764)
Administration 555,990 530,086 529,796 514,996 (14,800)
Systems Improvements
Systems Improvement(CIP)1,331,199 1,788,318 2,267,668 2,495,637 227,969
Operations 106,317 115,309 116,522 116,498 (24)
Operations & Maintenance 1,343,621 1,617,686 1,627,746 1,616,938 (10,808)
Debt Service 541,964 950,345 950,345 949,830 (515)
Operating Transfers Out 41,355 608,791 606,346 22,014 (584,332)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $3,920,446 $5,610,535 $6,098,423 $5,715,913 $(382,510)
TO/FROM RESERVES $1,894,411 $122,291 $(40,913)$110,833 $151,746
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Storm Drainage Fund
303
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 848,082 1,000,492 1,012,669 994,423
Contract Services 340,332 379,379 392,379 515,879
Supplies and Materials 72,912 99,300 87,800 103,300
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,300 11,621 10,121 7,621
General Expense 116,268 151,400 151,400 14,900
Rents and Leases 0 6,000 6,000 6,000
Allocated Charges 616,034 614,889 613,695 606,309
Debt Service 541,964 950,345 950,345 949,830
Capital Improvement Program 1,331,199 1,788,318 2,267,668 2,495,637
Operating Transfers Out 41,355 608,791 606,346 22,014
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,920,446 $5,610,535 $6,098,423 $5,715,913
Total Full Time Positions 9.54 9.54 9.54 9.44
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of industrial storm water inspections conducted 309 295 300
2. Linear feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned annually 86,174 100,000 100,000
3. Total dollar value of storm drain improvements completed- (capital
expenditures)$1,649,205 $1,459,000 $2,171,000
Efficiency:
1. Number of industrial storm water inspections per FTE 309 295 300
2. Pounds of debris removed by hydroflushing pipelines 50,000 75,000 75,000
3. Total dollar value of storm drain improvements per FTE $785,336 $678,605 $1,009,757
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of industrial sites in compliance with storm water regulations 80.9% 81.4%80%
2. Number of resident calls regarding ponding problems 119 100 100
3. Percent of storm drain improvement projects completed within planned
budget 100% 100%100%
Storm Drainage Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012304
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Rate Stabilization Reserve 245 111 356 N/A
TOTAL RESERVES $245 $111 $356
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Increase net sales (Note 2) 86 86
Decrease interest income (11)(11)
Increase in operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund (Note 3)19 19
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $75 $19 $94
Adjustments (Note 1)(325)(325)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $75 $(306)$(231)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, Public Works Operations (18)(18)
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $(18) $0 $(18)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(18) $0 $(18)
Non-Salary
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund (Note 4) (574)(574)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 5) (10)(10)
Increase in capital improvement program (Note 6) 228 228
Allocated Charges Decrease (9)(9)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(365) $0 $(365)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(383) $0 $(383)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(383) $0 $(383)
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Storm Drainage Fund
305
Note 2: Increase in net sales is due to a rate increase of 1.5% based on the change in local CPI index as allowed
by the approved ballot measure.
Note 3: Refund of accumulated replacement charges that had been paid to the Vehicle Replacement and
Maintenance Fund for vehicles/equipment that have now been removed from service and will not be replaced.
Note 4: Decrease in transfer to the General Fund reflects final payment of loan in FY 2011. The loan was needed
in prior years to complete CIP SD-06102 San Francisquitio Creek Storm Water Pump Station.
Note 5: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the Utilities billing system.
Note 6: Projected CIP expenditures for the Storm Drainage Fund are $2.2 million in FY 2012.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Staff will manage CIP projects to increase drainage system capacity and to repair and rehabilitate deteriorated
storm drain infrastructure (Program N-36). In addition, staff will work with San Francisquito Creek JPA member
agencies to develop and implement a US Army Corps of Engineers project to address flood and erosion control
problems along the San Francisquito Creek (Program N-9). Staff will enforce the City’s ordinance regulating land
uses near streams and will continue to coordinate with SCVWD staff through the Water Resources Protection
Collaborative (Program N-8). Staff will continue to clean storm drain pipelines and catch basins, respond to and
clean up all identified non-hazardous material spills in the public right-of-way, and conduct a proactive storm
water pollution prevention program in an effort to improve the quality of storm water runoff (Program N-29).
Storm Drainage Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012306
SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS
To plan and construct drainage system improvements and to administer the City's participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program in order to provide adequate drainage and reduce the risk of flood damage to City residents.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 90,090 104,809 106,022 105,998
Contract Services 13,913 4,500 4,500 1,000
Supplies and Materials 1,042 2,900 2,900 2,900
General Expense 1,062 3,100 3,100 6,600
Allocated Charges 210 0 0 0
Capital Improvement Program 1,331,199 1,788,318 2,267,668 2,495,637
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,437,516 $1,903,627 $2,384,190 $2,612,135
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Storm Drainage Fund
307
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
To perform preventative, routine, and emergency maintenance on the City’s storm drainage system, and to conduct a program of
public outreach and code enforcement to optimize local drainage and enhance water quality.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 761,025 817,290 827,350 809,561
Contract Services 326,419 374,879 387,879 514,879
Supplies and Materials 71,870 96,400 84,900 100,400
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 12,300 11,621 10,121 7,621
General Expense 18,315 148,300 148,300 8,300
Rents and Leases 0 6,000 6,000 6,000
Allocated Charges 153,692 163,196 163,196 170,177
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,343,621 $1,617,686 $1,627,746 $1,616,938
TOTAL REVENUES $601 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000
Total Full Time Positions 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.25
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012308
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 309
Wastewater Treatment Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
310 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 311
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Wastewater Treatment Fund
To operate, maintain, and monitor the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 24 hours a day, every day; to treat all
wastewater from the five partner cities’ regional service area (Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East
Palo Alto Sanitary District), and to ensure the maximum feasible compliance with regulations protecting the San Francisco
Bay and the environment.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2011, the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) completed construction of the ultraviolet
disinfection system. The UV system lowers operating costs, more safely disinfects final treated water, and
reduces the plant's carbon footprint. Additional projects in FY 2011 included the commencement of the
long-range facility planning process, facility repair improvements to replace aging structures and
miscellaneous emergency and critical construction repairs to maintain plant operations.
In FY 2012, analysis of key alternatives for new RWQCP facilities will be conducted as part of the long range
facility planning process. The wastewater solids processes will receive special attention because the
existing incinerators are aging, and new regulatory requirements are likely to impact their operation. Also
in FY 2012, a project to better utilize methane from the Palo Alto landfill and related Plant improvements
will be undertaken.
In FY 2011, public participation remained strong in the program that collects unwanted medicine and
protects San Francisco Bay from contamination. Grease-related sewage blockages and overflows decreased
as restaurant inspections resulted in grease collection system upgrades. Mercury discharges to the RWQCP
continued to be at reduced levels due to successful installation of control devices at dental offices. In FY
2011, new commercial facility requirements for zinc, molybdenum, and cyanide were adopted as part of a
comprehensive update of the City's Sewer Use Ordinance.
In FY 2012, key actions to reduce salt discharges to the sewer system will be taken to reduce the salinity of
Palo Alto's recycled water. Studies to locate infiltrating Bay water will be completed, and the next phase of
controls will be implemented.
Also in 2012, implementation, outreach and enforcement of the new 2011 Ordinance requirements for
industrial waste discharge permitees and a lowered cyanide limit will occur. Additionally, the requirements
for food service facilities were expanded and the BMPs were codified.
COUNCIL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION
City Finances
• Staff will continue to pursue grant options to help finance projects and to identify opportunities to
minimize costs.
Emergency Preparedness
• Staff will continue to review emergency response plans, train staff on response actions, and maintain
equipment in a state of operational readiness.
Environmental Sustainability
• The RWQCP and Environmental Compliance Division are continually implementing programs to
protect the climate and further reduce pollutant releases.
• The Disinfection Facility Improvement Program project has replaced the use of chlorine for
disinfection of plant effluent.
Wastewater Treatment Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012312
• Staff will continue process optimizations to conserve electricity and natural gas including enhanced use
of landfill gas.
Community Collaboration for Youth Health and Well Being
• Staff will continue to involve youth through volunteer opportunities, classroom visits, and tours of the
RWQCP.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Net Sales 10,312,744 12,595,872 12,595,872 12,565,899 (29,973)
Interest Income 635,079 422,100 422,100 498,800 76,700
Other Income 6,602,204 7,571,860 7,571,860 8,016,138 444,278
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $17,550,027 $20,589,832 $20,589,832 $21,080,837 $491,005
Administration 2,110,633 2,352,522 2,341,791 2,403,288 61,497
Operations
Systems Improvement(CIP)5,963,581 2,500,000 2,500,657 56,229 (2,444,428)
Operations 11,219,448 12,739,332 13,161,450 12,509,658 (651,792)
Environmental Compliance 2,484,329 2,917,543 2,939,643 3,025,562 85,919
Debt Service 429,803 814,992 814,992 817,622 2,630
Operating Transfers Out 152,679 8,761 8,761 105,393 96,632
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $22,360,473 $21,333,150 $21,767,294 $18,917,752 $(2,849,542)
TO/FROM RESERVES $(4,810,446) $(743,318) $(1,177,462)$2,163,085 $3,340,547
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 8,579,594 9,212,822 9,308,001 9,509,381
Contract Services 1,141,190 1,883,988 1,883,988 1,876,988
Supplies and Materials 1,644,900 1,838,228 1,838,228 1,421,961
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 7,734 10,000 10,000 10,000
General Expense 337,532 404,340 404,340 411,340
Allocated Charges 4,103,460 4,660,019 4,998,327 4,708,838
Debt Service 429,803 814,992 814,992 817,622
Capital Improvement Program 5,963,581 2,500,000 2,500,657 56,229
Operating Transfers Out 152,679 8,761 8,761 105,393
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $22,360,473 $21,333,150 $21,767,294 $18,917,752
Total Full Time Positions 68.62 68.66 68.66 69.16
Total Temporary Positions 0.99 1.21 1.21 1.44
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Treatment Fund
313
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,747 182 1,929 1,929 (max.)
Distribution RSR (2,526) 1,981 (545) 3,050 - 6,100
TOTAL RESERVES $(779) $2,163 $1,384
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES ($000)
Increase net sales (Note 2) 397 397
Increase interest income 77 77
Increase other income 17 17
NET REVENUE CHANGES $491 $0 $491
Adjustments (Note 1)0
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $491 $0 $491
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ($000)
Salary and Benefits
Add 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services 110 110
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Assistant Plant Manager 24 24
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC (22)(22)
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist 10 10
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protec-
tion Manager (34)(34)
Pay realignment for 3.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations 19 19
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (47)(47)
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 3) 142 142
Total Salary and Benefit Changes $202 $0 $202
Adjustments (Note 1)0 0
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $202 $0 $202
Wastewater Treatment Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012314
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Increase in net sales reflects efforts to align budget amount closer to expected actual amount.
Note 3: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases for the pension component of the
benefits allocation.
Note 4: Decrease in chemicals expense is due to the use of the ultraviolet disinfection facility to treat plant
effluent.
Note 5: No CIP projects are planned for FY 2012.
Note 6: Changes in transfers to Technology Fund are due primarily to the costs of the telephone system
replacement.
Note 7: Allocated charges are decreasing primarily due to efforts to align the budget amounts for natural gas
and landfill gas charges closer to expected actual amounts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW
The budget includes the following resources directed towards implementing the programs and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Comprehensive Plan Programs N-27 through N-35, which focus on reducing pollution and improving the Storm
Drainage system, will be implemented through new and existing programs. The focus will be on
Bioaccumulative, Persistent, Toxic (BPT) chemicals, including mercury, pesticides, and dioxins. Staff will focus on
increasing public awareness of the contribution to pollution levels made by pesticide use and motor vehicle
use (Program N-40). Staff will also implement a Mercury and Dioxin Prevention and Elimination Policy
(Programs N-28 and N-35) and continue efforts to improve the participation of businesses in the Clean Bay
Non-Salary
Increase debt service expense 3 3
Decrease in chemicals expense (Note 4) (416)(416)
Decrease in capital improvement program (Note 5) (2,444)(2,444)
Increase operating transfer to Technology Fund (Note 6) 97 97
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 7) (291)(291)
Total Non-Salary Changes $(3,051) $0 $(3,051)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(2,849) $0 $(2,849)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(2,849) $0 $(2,849)
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Treatment Fund
315
Business programs. Ongoing public awareness, collection, and regulatory programs for mercury products will
be enhanced by focusing on a larger group of mercury containing devices and pharmaceutical products. Staff
will insure that local dentists implement the new mercury reduction ordinance which became effective on
March 31, 2005. Recognizing the impact of air pollution on surface water, new program elements will also focus
on vehicles and wood burning stoves (Programs N-42 through N-44).
Wastewater Treatment Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012316
OPERATIONS
To efficiently and effectively operate and maintain the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, ensuring continuous around-the-clock
treatment of all wastewater in accordance with State and Federal permits and other environmental regulations.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 6,632,690 7,278,520 7,350,638 7,465,075
Contract Services 588,306 890,050 890,050 890,050
Supplies and Materials 1,578,654 1,797,128 1,797,128 1,380,861
General Expense 226,495 323,890 323,890 323,890
Allocated Charges 2,193,303 2,449,744 2,799,744 2,449,782
Capital Improvement Program 5,963,581 2,500,000 2,500,657 56,229
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $17,183,029 $15,239,332 $15,662,107 $12,565,887
TOTAL REVENUES $1,927 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 54.25 54.25 54.25 53.85
Total Temporary Positions 0.99 1.21 1.21 1.44
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Millions of gallons (MG) treated 8,184 8,200 8,200
2. Tons of solids incinerated 6,702 6,900 6,900
3. Number of samples analyzed 4,005 4,210 4,300
Efficiency:
1. Treatment cost in $/MG treated (total O&M cost; exclude CIP)$1,286 $1,320 $1,059
2. Solids treatment ($/dry ton)$296 $308 $310
3. Number of employees per million of gallons per day treated 2.48 2.47 2.47
Effectiveness:
1. Fish toxicity (% survival)100% 95%95%
2. Compliance with discharge permit (percentage compliance)100% 99%99%
3. Reclaimed water delivered (million gallons per year)168 250 450
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Wastewater Treatment Fund
317
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
To promote pollution prevention concepts, initiate source control programs designed to minimize pollutants entering the sanitary
sewer system from the regional service area, and ensure compliance with environmental study requirements of regulatory
agencies.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,769,975 1,812,705 1,834,805 1,920,724
Contract Services 552,884 993,938 993,938 986,938
Supplies and Materials 66,246 41,100 41,100 41,100
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 7,734 10,000 10,000 10,000
General Expense 63,327 50,450 50,450 57,450
Allocated Charges 24,163 9,350 9,350 9,350
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,484,329 $2,917,543 $2,939,643 $3,025,562
TOTAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Full Time Positions 13.70 13.70 13.70 14.60
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of industries regulated 88 86 86
2. Number of permits issued 40 42 40
3. Number of industrial discharge tests 5,722 5,450 5,500
Efficiency:
1. Number of industries regulated per FTE (#/6 FTE)14.7 14.3 14.5
2. Number of permits issued per FTE (#/6 FTE)6.7 7.0 7.0
3. Number of industrial discharge tests per FTE (#/6 FTE)954 908 900
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of dental offices in compliance 98% 98%98%
2. Percent of commercial business in compliance 100% 100%98%
3. Percent of discharge tests in compliance 99% 99%98%
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012318
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 319
OTHER FUNDS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
320 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 321
Special Revenue Funds
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
322 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 323
Special Revenue Overview
Special Revenue Overview
Special Revenue Funds comprise revenues that have either restrictions on their use or special reporting
requirements, such as development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries; gas tax
revenues from the State; housing mitigation fees assessed on commercial and industrial projects; in-lieu
fees for the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program; transportation mitigation fees paid by
developers; and parking in-lieu fees from commercial projects in the downtown area. Also included are
parking permit revenues and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the federal government.
Community Development Funds
Revenue in this fund comes from development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The
development impact fees collected from new developments provides funding for the City's infrastructure
related to parks, community centers, libraries, and the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. The projected
revenue for the development impact fees is $.816 million for Fiscal Year 2012.
Street Improvement Funds (SIF)
Revenue in this fund comes from the state gas tax and from federal and state grants earmarked for street
improvements. The SIF provides funds for transportation and traffic-related capital projects. Based on
projected gas tax revenues and interest income, revenues are estimated to be $1.779 million for Fiscal Year
2012.
Federal and State Revenue Funds
The Federal and State Revenue Fund consists primarily of CDBG monies. CDBG funds are grants from the
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). They are used for a wide variety of community
projects such as affordable housing, public services, and project expenditures. CDBG project expenditures
draw upon program income and prior year allocations that have been left unspent. For Fiscal Year 2012,
Agency requests totaled $.73 million and the Proposed budget totals $.89 milliion.
Housing In-lieu Funds
In-lieu housing revenues come from fees required of commercial, industrial, and residential developers.
These fees are used to provide housing for the City's Subsidized Housing Program. Any new projects are
brought to the Council for specific appropriation. Other revenue includes proceeds from the anticipated
sale of BMR housing units.
Special Districts Funds
Revenue in this fund comes from parking permits and is used for maintenance of parking facilities within
the University and California Avenue business districts. Parking permit fees will not change from the Fiscal
Year 2011 adjusted budget.
Traffic Mitigation and Parking In-Lieu Funds
Traffic mitigation fee revenue is derived from fees paid by developers of new, non-residential projects to
alleviate resulting additional traffic congestion. Parking in-lieu fees result from commercial projects in
assessment district areas which contribute a fee for future parking spaces in lieu of providing the required
spaces within the project area itself.
Special Revenue Overview
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012324
Public Benefit Funds
Revenue in these funds is a result of a senior housing project on Hamilton Avenue and contributions and
mitigation fees paid for Planned Community Zone approvals. The Hamilton Avenue funds will continue to be
used by Avenidas (formerly Senior Coordinating Council) to provide services to seniors.
Downtown Business Improvement District (BID)
The Downtown Business Improvement District was established by an ordinance adopted in January 2004, to
promote the downtown business community through events, marketing, beautification, and advocacy
programs.
The BID surveyed its member businesses to determine what its priorities should be. The top two priorities
identified were street cleanliness and issues related to the homeless in the downtown area. In response to
these issues, the Palo Alto Business and Professional Association (which operates the BID under contract with
the City) has initiated the Downtown Streets Team, a national model, empowering the homeless to care for the
streets and take responsibility for cleanliness of the area. In addition, twice a year there is a marketing effort for
restaurants, Dine Downtown, providing a fixed price menu for dining. The Palo Alto Business and Professional
Association will continue to operate the Downtown Palo Alto BID for Fiscal Year 2012.
FY 2012 Special Revenue by Fund
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 325
FY 2012 Special Revenue by Fund
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Community
Develop.
Funds
Street
Improve-
ment
Funds
Federal &
State
Revenue
Funds
Housing
In-Lieu
Funds
Special
Districts
Funds
Traffic
Mitigation
& Parking
In-Lieu
Funds
Public
Benefits
Funds
BID
Funds
Total
Special
Revenue
Funds
Revenues
Gas Tax 1,765 1,765
Federal and State Grants 663 663
Parking Permit/In-Lieu Fees 82 3,500 1,321 200 5,103
Development Impact Fees 553 553
Interest Income 181 14 6 165 30 115 23 2 535
Operating Transfers 5 5
Other Revenue 276 149 280 705
Business Improvement District
(BID) Special Assessment 160 160
Loan Payoff 7 82 89
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $816 $1,779 $957 $3,896 $1,351 $595 $23 $162 $9,577
Expenditures
CDBG Project Expenditures 1,051 1,051
CDBG Administration Cost
Recovery 157 157
Planning / Public Works Depart-
ment Transfer for Street
Improvement Cost Recovery
292 292
Charleston-Arastradero Funds
CIP Transfer 47 47
Street Improvement Fund CIP
Transfer 2,150 2,150
Parking Facilities Debt Service
Transfer 80 80
Parking Garage Maintenance/
Operations Transfer to General
Fund
1,138 1,138
Parking Lot Sweeping Transfer to
Refuse Fund 220 220
Below Market Rate (BMR) Pro-
gram Management Contract 125 125
BMR Loan Program 350 350
College Terrace Parking Program 96 96
University Avenue Parking Per-
mits 31 31
Residential Housing In-Lieu 4,815 4,815
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 1,100 1,100
Senior Services Grant 28 28
BID Operating Expense 160 160
Administrative Fees 0
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $47 $2,442 $1,208 $6,390 $1,565 $0 $28 $160 $11,841
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $769 $(664) $(251) $(2,494) $(214) $595 $(5) $2 $(2,263)
Consolidated Special Revenue Funds
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012326
Consolidated Special Revenue Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Gas Tax $1,061 $1,127 $1,127 $1,764 $637
Federal and State Grants 138 0 125 0 (125)
Federal CDBG 621 663 663 663 0
Housing In-Lieu 1,900 3,500 3,500 3,500 0
Traffic Mitigation Fees 127 282 282 282 0
Developer Impact Fees 576 553 553 553 0
Parking Mitigation Fees 1,287 1,120 1,191 1,321 130
BID Assessment 14 160 160 160 0
Interest Income 636 519 519 535 16
Other Revenue 163 794 794 794 0
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $6,523 $8,718 $8,914 $9,572 $658
Operating Transfers From:
Housing Improvement 0 5 5 50
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $0 $5 $5 $5 $0
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $6,523 $8,723 $8,919 $9,577 $658
Expenses
General Expense 1,182 7,783 8,180 7,908 (273)
Operating Transfers To:
General Fund 1,044 1,383 1,383 1,431 48
CDBG 05550
Debt Service 80808080 0
CIP 1,464 1,052 1,082 2,197 1,116
Refuse 257 179 179 220 41
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS $2,845 $2,699 $2,729 $3,934 $1,205
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $4,028 $10,482 $10,909 $11,841 $932
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $2,495 $(1,758) $(1,990)$(2,264) $(274)
Community Development Block Grant
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 327
Community Development Block Grant
FY 2012 FUNDING FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2012
Agency
Requests
FY 2012
Proposed-in-
Concept
Budget
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Housing & Urban Development 731,566 731,500 731,500
Prior Year Excess/Reallocation (1) 99,930 102,804 102,804
Program Income
Housing Improvement Program 5,000 0 0
Palo Alto Housing Corporation 60,000 60,000 60,000
Estimated Sheridan Apartments and Palo Alto Gardens Loan
Repayment 149,550 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $1,046,046 $894,304 $894,304
USE OF FUNDS
Public Service
Palo Alto Housing Corporation - SRO Resident Support Services 34,211 52,248 26,000
Catholic Charities - Long-Term Care Ombudsman 5,000 6,500 5,000
Support Network for Battered Women - Domestic Violence 9,700 10,000 10,000
Clara Mateo Alliance - Single/Couple Shelter 19,841 0 0
Clara Mateo Alliance - Family Shelter 19,841 50,000 0
InnVision - Opportunity Center 34,211 50,000 50,000
Project Sentinel/Fair Housing 0 31,440 31,000
Community Technology - HMIS-SCC 0 4,000 0
Emergency Housing Coalition/Palo Alto HOMES 0 10,000 0
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence 0 5,000 0
Shelter Network - Haven Family House 0 8,500 0
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center 0 7,500 0
SUBTOTAL: PUBLIC SERVICE (2) $122,804 $235,188 $122,000
Planning and Administration
City of Palo Alto - CDBG Administration includes 1.15 FTE CDBG
Administrative Staff 127,873 158,300 133,747
Project Sentinel/Fair Housing 31,440 0 0
SUBTOTAL: PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION (2) $159,313 $158,300 $133,747
Housing, Economic Development & Capital Projects
Community Working Group/Alma Gardens 0 302,788 302,788
Palo Alto Housing Corporation-Sheridan Apts. 0 59,167 59,167
Palo Alto Housing Corporation - Ventura Apts. 0 129,602 129,602
Downtown Streets Team/Workforce Development 0 147,000 147,000
Community Development Block Grant
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012328
Palo Alto Housing Corporation - Cal Park Apts. 0 248,835 0
Second Harvest Food Bank 211,819 0 0
Day Worker Center of Mountain View 63,807 0 0
Stevenson House - Interior Common Area Renovation 478,304 0 0
Avenidas-Home Repair Accessibility Services 10,000 0 0
SUBTOTAL: HOUSING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL
PROJECTS (2)$763,930 $887,392 $638,557
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $1,046,047 $1,280,880 $894,304
(1) Funds received in excess of revenue estimate for local program income (FY2011 and prior)
(2) The funding will be made at the three primary program activity levels
FY 2012 FUNDING FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2012
Agency
Requests
FY 2012
Proposed-in-
Concept
Budget
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 329
Debt Service Overview
Debt Service Overview
ebt service expenses for the General Fund and for Measure N General Obligation (GO) Bonds are
shown below. Through a transfer to the Debt Service Fund, General Fund revenues pay debt
service on the three Certificate of Participation issues shown in the table below using general
revenues. The GO bond debt service is paid by property owners through an assessment on the
assessed value of their property
The table below provides data on the three COP and GO bond debt issues:
Individual issues of Certificates of Participation (COPs) were made as follows:
• In 1998, Golf Course COPs were issued to refinance prior 1978 Golf Course debt and for infrastructure
improvements such as improving drainage, irrigation, and the driving range. Although Golf Course
revenue is considered General Fund revenue, fees charged by the Course are viewed as the primary
source for paying debt service expense
• The 2002A Civic Center Refinancing COPs were issued in January 2002 to refinance the City’s 1992
COPs at a lower interest rate. The refinancing resulted in an overall debt service savings of $372,000.
The 1992 COPs were issued to make seismic and other safety improvements to the Civic Center
• The 2002B Downtown Parking Improvement Project COPs were issued in January 2002 to fund the
construction of a two-story structure on Bryant and Florence streets that is adjacent to the new
parking garage built on the old S and L lots. These facilities were built at the same time. The two-
story structure, which required taxable COPs to construct, was originally designed to house retail
businesses that would generate sales tax for the City. It now is home to a fitness center. The rent
charged to the fitness center is deposited into the General Fund and is used for paying debt service.
The total debt service for the three COPs in FY 2012 is $1.211 million.
In June 2010, the City issued General Obligation Bonds (first series) to finance the cost of constructing a
new energy efficient, environmentally friendly Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, renovation of
the Downtown Library, and the design of a renovated Main Library. These improvements include
enhancements at all three facilities for seismic safety and disabled access, expanded space for library
collections, meeting and study areas, and new air conditioning ventilation and lighting systems. With
approval of Measure N by the voters, the City Council is empowered and obligated to levy annual ad
valorem taxes upon property within the City for the payment of principal and interest on the first series of
bonds. The total debt service in FY 2012 for the 2010 Library GO Bonds is $3.495 million.
D
GO
Debt
1998 Golf Course
COP 2002A COP's 2002B COP's 2010 Library GO
Bonds
Issued Date February 1999 January 2002 January 2002 June 2010
Principal Issued $7,750,000 $3,500,000 $2,674,048 $55,305,000
Annual Debt Service Payment $557,359 $421,200 $232,000 $3,267,719
Final Payment Date Sep. 2018 Mar. 2012 Mar. 2022 Aug. 2040
Estimated Debt Outstanding as of 7/1/2011 $3,690,000 $405,000 $1,800,000 $55,305,000
Total Interest over life of Debt $4,183,244 $726,625 $2,243,950 $49,484,783
General Fund Debt Service
Debt Service Overview
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012330
CITY OF PALO ALTO DEBT POLICY
The City of Palo Alto recognizes the need for spending a prudent amount every year for ongoing capital
replacement and rehabilitation needs. An ongoing capital improvement plan is vital to ensure the future
viability of services and the City places priority on funding its regular and ongoing capital needs on a pay-as-
you-go basis. However, there are special or extraordinary capital improvement projects in which it is
appropriate to consider debt financing.
The guidelines below support the decision-making process on issuing debt. These guidelines were adopted by
the City Council on May 13, 1997 (City Manager's Report 210:97).
Debt financing is only appropriately considered for capital improvements and not for operating expenses.
Annual debt service payments should not exceed 10 percent of the annual expenditure budget of the General
Fund. The term of the debt issuance should not exceed the useful life expectancy of the asset acquired,
constructed, or improved.
It is appropriate to consider debt financing under the following circumstances:
• The project financing can be paid for directly by the users of the facility. One example is capital
improvements made to the City's golf course, where debt service payments can be made from the green
fees paid by golfers. A second example is capital improvements paid for by assessments to property
owners, such as a parking assessment for a downtown parking garage
• If a significant backlog of Enterprise Funded capital improvement projects has developed and if that
backlog cannot be addressed through the ongoing capital budget, without having a significant impact
on utility rates
• If funding for a large project (or grouping of similar projects) would have a significant negative impact on
the availability of funding for other ongoing capital needs
• Capital leases may be considered for purchases of large pieces of equipment
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT
California Government Code, Section 43605 sets the debt limit at 15 percent of the assessed value of all real and
personal property of the City. This Code section was enacted prior to the change in basing assessed value to
full market value when it was previously 25 percent of market value. Thus, one-fourth of the limit is adjusted
and is calculated to be 3.75 percent to show assessed valuation at full cash value. This legal debt margin
applies to General Obligation debt.
Based upon the assessed value of $22.0 billion for FY 2011, the City is limited to general obligation
indebtedness of $0.8 billion. As of June 30, 2010, the City issued $55.3 million in General Obligation Bonds for
the Library and Community Center. This bond issuance yielded $58.5 million for project needs. Debt service on
these bonds for FY 2012 is $3.495 million. The City is within the legal debt limit as described by the California
Government Code.
Debt Service Funds
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 331
Debt Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Property Tax $0 $3,492 $3,492 $3,495 $4
Other - Interest 10 54 54 30 (24)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $10 $3,546 $3,546 $3,525 $(20)
General Fund Operating Transfers
Golf Course Corporation 449 528 528 527 0
Public Improvement Corp. (Civic Center) 333 328 328 341 13
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable 227 224 224 232 8
University Avenue Permit Fund Transfer 80 80 80 80 0
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $1,089 $1,160 $1,160 $1,181 $20
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $1,098 $4,706 $4,706 $4,706 $0
Expenses
Debt Service:
Golf Course Corporation - Principal 355 370 370 385 15
Golf Course Corporation - Interest 206 190 190 172 (17)
Public Improvement Corporation - Principal 380 390 390 405 15
Public Improvement Corporation - Interest 46 31 31 16 (15)
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Principal 105 110 110 115 5
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Interest 129 123 123 117 (6)
Library GO Bonds - Principal 0 0 0 765 765
Library GO Bonds - Interest 0 1,472 1,472 2,503 1,031
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $1,221 $2,686 $2,686 $4,478 $1,792
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $(122) $2,020 $2,020 $227 $(1,792)
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012332
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 333
Internal Service Funds
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
334 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 335
Internal Service Funds Overview
Internal Service Funds Overview
Internal Service Funds provide services to City departments and recover their costs through user charges.
Charges for employee benefits (health, pension, life, etc.) and workers compensation are reflected in the
departments’ salary and benefit accounts. The remaining user charges are included in the "allocated
charges" expenditure category within each department or fund.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund
This fund reflects costs for providing maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment used by
City departments.
In Fiscal Year 2012, staff will continue to focus on core activities as well as new initiatives as outlined in the
overview presented in the following pages.
Technology Fund
This fund reflects costs associated with citywide Information Technology (IT) activities. IT staff maintain
critical desktop, software, and infrastructure replacements and maintenance activities for all City
departments, including the Utilities Department. The overview for this program contains information
about projects and activities for Fiscal Year 2012.
Printing and Mailing Services Fund
This fund reflects costs for central duplicating, printing and mailing services provided to City departments.
A full description of these services is included in the overview section that follows. A cost-benefit analysis of
this program will be conducted in the upcoming year to determine if additional services delivery changes
can be made to ensure services are provided in the most cost effective manner.
General Benefits Fund
This fund reflects costs for a variety of employee benefits, including pension, health, dental, vision, and life
insurance. Funds are also included for payments made to employees who elect to waive healthcare
coverage under a City plan because they have other coverage. . As discussed in the overview section, costs
for employee pension and health benefits will increase substantially in Fiscal Year 2012. The City will
continue to seek changes in cost sharing (i.e. between the City and employees) and review possible
changes to benefit formula for future years’ service.
Workers’ Compensation Fund
This fund reflects costs for the CIty’s Workers’ Compensation program. Funds are included for both
administrative costs as well as payments made to eligible employees. For Fiscal Year 2012, costs are
projected to remain level with the Fiscal Year 2011 adjusted budget.
Liability Fund
This fund reflects costs for the City’s Liability program. In Fiscal Year 2012, costs are projected to remain
level with the Fiscal Year 2011 adjusted budget.
Retiree Health Benefits Fund
This fund reflects costs for medical insurance provided to retired City employees. In addition, this fund
includes payments for the “unfunded liability” for medical benefits that will be provided to future retirees.
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012336
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Revenues
Operating Revenue 7,599 11,231 1,137 39,323 3,108 1,608 9,789 73,795
Interest Income 179 353 0 274 438 142 40 1,427
Other Revenue 66 967 2 0 0 40 0 1,075
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $7,844 $12,550 $1,139 $39,597 $3,546 $1,791 $9,829 $76,296
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures 5,441 10,692 1,122 39,597 3,546 1,791 9,789 71,978
Capital Improvement Program 0 2,497 0 0 0 0 0 2,497
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $5,441 $13,189 $1,122 $39,597 $3,546 $1,791 $9,789 $74,475
NET TO/FROM UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $2,403 $(638) $17 $0 $0 $0 $40 $0
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 337
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Changes to Unrestricted assets
JUNE 30, 2011 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $5,260 $2,238 $(12) $200 $100 $100 $25,504 $33,390
FY 2012 Projected Changes 2,403 (638) 17 0 0 0 40 1,822
JUNE 30, 2012 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $7,663 $1,600 $5 $200 $100 $100 $25,544 $35,212
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012338
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 339
Vehicle Replacement Fund
To provide for the timely replacement of vehicles and equipment in accordance with prescribed schedules, to ensure the safe,
reliable, and efficient operation of vehicles and equipment through systematic preventive maintenance and cost-effective
repairs, and to provide safe, efficient fuel storage and dispensing facilities while pursuing alternative fuel technologies and
minimizing the pollution and carbon footprint generated by the City’s vehicle fleet.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2011, staff focused on core activities, such as vehicle and equipment replacement, preventive
maintenance, repairs, and fueling. In addition to these core activities, staff began the implementation of
many of the recommendations from the Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement.
During FY 2012, staff will continue to focus on core activities and the implementation of audit
recommendations. Fleet staff will establish pool vehicle locations at the Civic Center, the Municipal Services
Center and Elwell Court. Staff continues to review the City's fleet with the City Auditor's Office to ensure
that purchases are prioritized for maximum cost effectiveness and are in compliance with the City's
utilization and replacement policies. The scheduled vehicle replacement program is currently suspended in
accordance with the audit recommendations, and all vehicle purchases are being conducted on an as-
needed basis with the approval of the Fleet Review Committee.
In FY 2011, staff implemented a pilot program for public dispensing of compressed natural gas (CNG). In FY
2012 Public Works will put into operation a CNG fueling station that will be open to the public.
Two changes made during FY 2011 will affect departmental allocations for vehicle replacement and
operating costs in FY 2012.
• Public Works revised the methodology used to charge departments for vehicle and equipment costs,
moving from a rate-based to a direct charge system. The recent vehicle audit recommended that
Public Works review the existing chargeback system and develop a methodology that would more
accurately capture the cost of vehicle operations. Public Works determined that a direct charge
system would work best. Because the new system had been in place for only six months at the time
the FY 2012 budget was being prepared, sufficient historical cost data was not available. Therefore,
the initial FY 2012 allocations are based on prior year allocations, with minor adjustments. A full year
of cost history under the new system will be available at FY 2011 year-end. At that time, the FY 2012
departmental allocations will be reviewed and adjustments (if necessary) will be made at mid-year.
• 51 vehicles and pieces of equipment have been removed from the fleet as a result of the Fleet Review
Committee’s review of underutilized vehicles and the outsourcing of golf course maintenance
operations. These reductions are accounted for in the departmental allocations. The ongoing
evaluation and optimization of the fleet may result in additional reductions.
CIP projects from prior years that are expected to be carried forward into FY 2012 include:
• Ongoing maintenance facility upgrades (CIP VR-04010)
• Implementation of the new City-wide fuel management system (CIP VR-06801)
• Pool vehicle reservation system (CIP VR-07001)
• Installation of diesel particulate filters on diesel trucks and equipment (CIP VR-07002)
• Vehicle Replacement Program (CIP VR-11000).
All of these projects reside within the capital improvement program with project cost captured in the fund.
Vehicle Replacement Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012340
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Revenue 6,822,145 7,584,935 7,584,935 7,598,649 13,714
Interest Income 236,296 156,300 156,300 179,300 23,000
Other Income 740,128 191,009 191,009 66,009 (125,000)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $7,798,569 $7,932,244 $7,932,244 $7,843,958 $(88,286)
Vehicle Replacement and Additions 811,701 249,384 254,377 196,778 (57,599)
Vehicle Operations and Maintenance 4,046,216 4,632,047 4,632,043 4,565,447 (66,596)
Depreciation 2,652,298 0 0 00
Operating Transfers Out 27,415 0 590,648 679,187 88,539
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $7,537,630 $4,881,431 $5,477,068 $5,441,412 $(35,656)
TO/FROM RESERVES $260,939 $3,050,813 $2,455,176 $2,402,546 $(52,630)
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,848,969 2,021,593 2,025,793 1,997,940
Contract Services 934,960 351,500 351,500 373,000
Supplies and Materials 1,327,258 1,534,200 1,534,200 1,528,200
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 475,739 1,000 1,000 0
General Expense 2,107,064 65,500 65,500 51,000
Rents and Leases 4,045 3,500 3,500 3,500
Allocated Charges 812,180 884,138 882,056 808,585
Capital Improvement Program 0 20,000 22,871 0
Operating Transfers Out 27,415 0 590,648 679,187
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,537,630 $4,881,431 $5,477,068 $5,441,412
Total Full Time Positions 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of alternatively-fueled vehicles in the City fleet (SEA)74 65 67
Efficiency:
1. Percentage of total fleet fuel consumption that is alternative fuels (CNG,
biodiesel). Includes fuel provided to PAUSD and GreenWaste.24% 25%27%
Effectiveness:
1. Amount of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption avoided (in gallons).
Includes fuel provided to PAUSD and GreenWaste.86,831 87,000 90,000
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Vehicle Replacement Fund
341
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time revenues and appropriation changes from the prior year that did not
carry forward from the FY 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have decreased mainly due to a decrease in disability/worker’s compensation
expense.
Note 3: No CIP expenditures are included in the FY 2012 budget for the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund. This amount is subject to change pending implementation of the audit recommentations.
Note 4: Refund of accumulated replacement charges that had been paid to the Vehicle Replacement and
Maintenance Fund for vehicles/equipment that have now been removed from service and will not be replaced.
Note 5: Decrease in allocated charges is primarily due to a decrease in cost plan charges.
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase vehicle replacement reimbursement from other funds 13,714 13,714
Decrease sale of salvage (125,000)(125,000)
Increase interest income 23,000 23,000
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $(88,286) $0 $(88,286)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET REVENUE CHANGES $(88,286) $0 $(88,286)
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Decrease in Temporary Salaries (15,795)(15,795)
Personnel Benefits Costs (Note 2) (12,058)(12,058)
Total Salary and Benefits $(27,853) $0 $(27,853)
Adjustments (Note 1)0
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(27,853) $0 $(27,853)
Non-Salary
Decrease capital improvement program (Note 3) (22,871)(22,871)
Increase operating transfer to General Fund (Note 4) 581,984 581,984
Increase operating transfer to Water Fund (Note 4) 8,329 8,329
Increase operating transfer to Electric Fund (Note 4) 70,249 70,249
Increase operating transfer to Storm Drainage Fund (Note 4) 18,625 18,625
Allocated Charges Decrease (Note 5) (73,471)(73,471)
Total Non-Salary $582,845 $0 $582,845
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $554,992 $0 $554,992
Adjustments (Note 1)(590,648)(590,648)
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $554,992 $(590,648)$(35,656)
Vehicle Replacement Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012342
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS
To implement the scheduled replacement of vehicles and equipment and to develop capital improvement projects for adding
vehicles and improving facilities and fuel sites.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 204,468 176,164 178,286 182,802
Contract Services 649,674 0 0 0
Supplies and Materials 21,695 0 0 0
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 475,276 0 0 0
General Expense (570,313) 0 0 0
Allocated Charges 38,845 53,220 53,220 13,976
Capital Improvement Program 0 20,000 22,871 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $819,645 $249,384 $254,377 $196,778
TOTAL REVENUES $3,684,706 $3,180,385 $3,180,385 $3,360,299
Total Full Time Positions 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Vehicle Replacement Fund
343
VEHICLE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
To maintain City vehicles and equipment within safe operating performance standards, ensure cost effective and appropriate fleet
utilization, and continue to investigate opportunities for use of alternative fuels.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,644,501 1,845,429 1,847,507 1,815,138
Contract Services 285,286 351,500 351,500 373,000
Supplies and Materials 1,305,563 1,534,200 1,534,200 1,528,200
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 463 1,000 1,000 0
General Expense 2,677,377 65,500 65,500 51,000
Rents and Leases 4,045 3,500 3,500 3,500
Allocated Charges 773,335 830,918 828,836 794,609
Operating Transfers Out 27,415 0 590,648 679,187
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,717,985 $4,632,047 $5,222,691 $5,244,634
TOTAL REVENUES $4,113,863 $4,751,859 $4,751,859 $4,483,659
Total Full Time Positions 14.68 14.68 14.68 14.68
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00
344 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 Information Technology Director
Vacant
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING & UTILITY
BILLING
1.0-IT Manager
5.0-Sr. Technologist
1.0-Business Analyst
PROJECT MANAGEMENT &
APPLICATIONS
1.0-IT Manager
5.0-Sr. Technologist
2.0-Technologist
1.0-Desktop Technician
CLIENT SERVICES &
INFRASTRUCTURE
1.0-IT Manager
4.0-Sr. Technologist
1.0-Technologist
4.0-Desktop Technician
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012
Position Totals: All Funds
28.00 Full-time
4.22 Hourly
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Organizational Chart
Information Technology Department
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 345
Information Technology Department
To provide a citywide financial planning mechanism for the timely and cost-effective replacement and upgrade of technology.
OVERVIEW
Beginning in FY 2012, Information Technology will be established as its own department, headed by the
Chief Information Officer.
In FY 2012, the Technology Fund will continue to deliver information technology services in accordance
with the Information Technology (IT) Strategic Plan. In FY2011, the IT Strategic Plan was updated to ensure
a cohesive, citywide management information strategy addressing organizational, operational, and
technological infrastructure issues. The plan facilitates the development and implementation of citywide
priorities including SAP, eGovernment, Geographic Information System (GIS), IT Security,
Telecommunications, and successful Business Alignment.
In FY2012, focus will be on the following issues:
Client Services will continue to maintain the City's desktop computers, continue to extend the 36-month
replacement schedule to 48 months as a cost saving measure, and begin the migration of Windows 7 and
Office 2010.
Infrastructure Services will focus on: implementing the Telecommunications Plan; developing a Wireless
Service Plan; refining and implementing the disaster recovery plan for the City's mission critical systems;
establishing a new contract for the City’s Internet connection service; continuing work on an IT security
audit; updating the City's existing telephone system; upgrading the City's network infrastructure, and
continuing the maintenance and upgrade of the City's existing elaborate server environment.
Project Management and Applications will continue to maintain the SAP Enterprise Resources Planning
(ERP) system; implement and develop in-house applications; maintain and support over 200 City-wide
applications; and enhance the look and feel of the City's website.
The Technology Fund reserve was established to fund the replacement of the City's IT infrastructure and
applications. Its existence reflects the City's strong commitment to future technology needs.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Revenue 10,088,368 10,391,759 10,391,759 11,230,818 839,059
Interest Income 278,425 314,600 314,600 352,700 38,100
Other Income 796,104 1,717,731 1,703,847 966,909 (736,938)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $11,162,897 $12,424,090 $12,410,206 $12,550,427 $140,221
Client Services 2,917,827 3,437,215 3,450,034 3,718,619 268,585
Infrastructure Services 2,707,927 1,796,999 1,810,495 2,426,815 616,320
Project Management and Application 4,999,361 4,400,857 4,426,702 4,476,985 50,283
Technology Projects 4,318,972 3,586,224 3,586,224 2,566,224 (1,020,000)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $14,944,087 $13,221,295 $13,273,455 $13,188,643 $(84,812)
TO/FROM RESERVES $(3,781,190) $(797,205) $(863,249)$(638,216) $225,033
Information Technology Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012346
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 4,909,100 4,562,855 4,670,344 5,401,910
Contract Services 3,878,625 3,031,821 2,981,821 3,014,021
Supplies and Materials 967,393 60,000 60,000 60,000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 816,102 750,039 750,039 750,039
General Expense 3,476,656 421,800 421,800 439,600
Rents and Leases 238,095 236,000 236,000 236,000
Allocated Charges 583,353 641,780 636,451 790,073
Capital Improvement Program 0 3,517,000 3,517,000 2,497,000
Operating Transfers Out 74,763 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $14,944,087 $13,221,295 $13,273,455 $13,188,643
Total Full Time Positions 30.65 30.41 30.41 30.41
Total Temporary Positions 0.84 2.10 2.10 3.76
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of computer workstations (SEA)1005 1020 1025
2. Provide public video broadcasting for meetings of the City Council,
Council Commissions, and Committees (e.g. Finance, Policy & Services,
Planning, Public Arts, Library Advisory, etc.)
190 190 190
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of requests for computer help desk services resolved within 5 days
(SEA)86% 87%87%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
REVENUE CHANGES
Increase investment income 38,100 38,100
Increase stanford revenue 16,000 16,000
Increase allocated revenues-internal 839,058 839,058
Decrease operating transfers for CIP projects (739,054)(739,054)
TOTAL REVENUE CHANGES $154,104 $0 $154,104
Adjustments (Note 1)(13,884)(13,884)
NET REVENUE CHANGES $154,104 $(13,884)$140,220
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Information Technology Department
347
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions.
SERVICE LEVEL CHANGES
Information Technology staff is continually adjusting to an increasing workload. The effect on management
and staff has been an increase in project management responsibilities. Due to the increased workload, it will be
necessary to contract for consulting services for any significant application upgrades.
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Add 1.0 FTE Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer 219,344 219,344
Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant 21,958 21,958
Increase temporary salaries 79,260 79,260
Correction to base salary 230,279 230,279
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 288,218 288,218
Total Salary and Benefits Changes $839,059 $$839,059
Adjustments (Note 1)(107,491)(107,491)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $839,059 $(107,491)$731,568
Non-Salary
Decrease CIP Expense (1,020,000)(1,020,000)
Increase allocated charges 82,244 82,244
Total Non-Salary $(937,756) $0 $(1,020,000)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(98,697) $(107,491)$(206,188)
Adjustments (Note 1)121,376 121,376
NET EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(98,697) $13,885 $(84,812)
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
Information Technology Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012348
CLIENT SERVICES
To provide best-of-class Information Technology (IT) customer service and support and provide state-of-the-art desktop
solutions for City employees.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,693,369 1,826,973 1,895,121 1,959,710
Contract Services 88,038 428,617 378,617 422,817
Supplies and Materials 31,140 20,000 20,000 20,000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 198,313 439,575 439,575 439,575
General Expense 115,281 4,800 4,800 10,600
Rents and Leases 237,012 236,000 236,000 236,000
Allocated Charges 479,911 481,250 475,921 629,917
Operating Transfers Out 74,763 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,917,827 $3,437,215 $3,450,034 $3,718,619
TOTAL REVENUES $7,706,377 $8,257,191 $8,257,191 $8,952,597
Total Full Time Positions 11.21 11.97 11.97 11.97
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.92
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Information Technology Department
349
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
To implement, develop, and maintain the City's core Information Technology (IT) infrastructure.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 1,037,667 502,629 516,125 1,132,819
Contract Services 382,101 440,600 440,600 440,600
Supplies and Materials 8,096 35,000 35,000 35,000
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 64,361 310,464 310,464 310,464
General Expense 1,113,868 417,000 417,000 417,000
Rents and Leases 1,083 0 0 0
Allocated Charges 100,751 91,306 91,306 90,932
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,707,927 $1,796,999 $1,810,495 $2,426,815
TOTAL REVENUES $627,138 $485,964 $485,964 $525,170
Total Full Time Positions 7.02 6.02 6.02 6.02
Total Temporary Positions 0.20 1.12 1.12 1.38
Information Technology Department
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012350
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND APPLICATION
To implement and maintain best-of-class Information Technology (IT) solutions through the use of leading project management and
application support methodologies.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 2,189,142 2,233,253 2,259,098 2,309,381
Contract Services 695,410 2,162,604 2,162,604 2,150,604
Supplies and Materials 19,775 5,000 5,000 5,000
General Expense 2,092,343 0 0 12,000
Allocated Charges 2,691000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,999,361 $4,400,857 $4,426,702 $4,476,985
TOTAL REVENUES $2,034,060 $1,963,604 $1,963,604 $2,122,151
Total Full Time Positions 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42
Total Temporary Positions 0.64 0.94 0.94 1.46
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Information Technology Department
351
TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits (11,078) 0 0 0
Contract Services 2,713,076 0 0 0
Supplies and Materials 908,382 0 0 0
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 553,428 0 0 0
General Expense 155,164 0 0 0
Allocated Charges 0 69,224 69,224 69,224
Capital Improvement Program 0 3,517,000 3,517,000 2,497,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,318,972 $3,586,224 $3,586,224 $2,566,224
TOTAL REVENUES $795,322 $1,717,331 $1,703,447 $950,509
Total Full Time Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Printing and Mailing Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012352
Printing and Mailing Fund
To provide quality printing and mailing services to all City departments in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, the Printing and Mailing Fund will continue to provide printing and mailing services. City staff will
manage print requests, with the production of major jobs accomplished by using local professional print shops.
Items for Council packets will continue to be printed and assembled in-house. In addition, to control costs, staff
will continue using on-line transmission of job orders to outside vendors.
The Printing Services Unit will continue to extend document processing services to City departments, using the
digital document processing system.
The Mailing Services Unit will continue to process and distribute daily internal mail to departments. In addition,
the City will continue to utilize a mailing services provider to transport all outgoing mail, including customer
utility bills, at no additional cost. Utility bills are mailed using permit indicia; all other City mail is processed
through the Mailing Services Unit.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Revenue 1,402,222 1,137,000 1,137,000 1,137,000 0
Interest Income (6,137) 0 0 00
Other Income 507 2,000 2,000 2,000 0
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $1,396,592 $1,139,000 $1,139,000 $1,139,000 $0
Printing and Mailing 1,467,481 1,142,909 1,143,413 1,121,890 (21,523)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $1,467,481 $1,142,909 $1,143,413 $1,121,890 $(21,523)
TO/FROM RESERVES $(70,889) $(3,909) $(4,413)$17,110 $21,523
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 477,446 162,866 164,127 157,368
Contract Services 188,721 167,011 167,011 165,511
Supplies and Materials 84,679 81,758 81,758 80,258
General Expense 397,894 399,357 399,357 400,857
Rents and Leases 212,245 233,985 233,985 233,985
Allocated Charges 98,274 97,932 97,175 83,911
Operating Transfers Out 8,222 0 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,467,481 $1,142,909 $1,143,413 $1,121,890
Total Full Time Positions 4.05 1.57 1.57 1.57
Total Temporary Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Printing and Mailing Fund
353
RESOURCE LEVEL NOTES
Note 1: Adjustments include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did not carry forward
from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
Note 2: Personnel benefit costs have increased mainly due to increases in pension plan contributions.
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of utilities bills mailed on average per day 1,550 1,500-2,000 1,500-2,000
Efficiency:
1. Accommodate 85 percent of late printing requests for inclusion in the
weekly City Council packet 100% 100%100%
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of utilities bills mailed timely each day 100% 100%100%
RESOURCE LEVEL CHANGES FY 2012
Ongoing
FY 2012
One-Time
FY 2012
Total
EXPENDITURE CHANGES
Salary and Benefits
Temporary salaries decrease (25,609)(25,609)
Personnel Benefit Costs Increase (Note 2) 20,110 20,110
Total Salary and Benefits $(5,499) $0 $(5,499)
Adjustments (Note 1)(1,260)(1,260)
NET SALARY AND BENEFITS CHANGES $(5,499) $(1,260)$(6,759)
Non-Salary
Decrease uniforms (1,500)(1,500)
Allocated charge decrease (12,242)(12,242)
Total Non-Salary $(13,742) $0 $(13,742)
Adjustments (Note 1)(1,022)(1,022)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CHANGES $(19,241) $(2,282)$(21,523)
General Benefits Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012354
General Benefits Fund
OVERVIEW
The General Benefits Fund includes funding for employee pension benefits, health benefits (medical, dental
and vision) for current City employees and several other benefits such as life insurance and the employee
assistance program. The FY 2012 budget presents the General Benefits, Workers' Compensation Insurance
Program, and General Liabilities Insurance Program as separate funds. Prior to FY 2012, these funds were
reports as the General Benefits and Insurance Fund. Funding for retired employees’ healthcare costs is reflected
in the Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
The City’s budgeted costs for employee pension and health benefits will increase significantly in FY 2012.
Overall benefit costs will increase approximately $5.5 million, or 16 percent, compared to the FY 2011 adjusted
budget. The $5.5 million increase is principally related to a $4.2 million increase in pension costs and a $1.3
million increase in healthcare costs. In FY 2012, for every $1,000 of salary paid, the City will pay (on average) an
additional $630 for employee benefits, the vast majority of which is in the form of pension or healthcare
benefits.
PENSION COSTS
The magnitude of the pension cost increase - from $19 million to $24 million - is unprecedented. CalPERS lost
24 percent of the value of its investment portfolio after the 2009 stock market plunge. The rates are calculated
two years in arrears by CalPERS and, although CalPERS projected an 11 percent return on investment for FY
2010, the City’s annual contribution rate still increased significantly. Governmental agencies throughout the
state face the prospect of making significant cuts in services in order to fund their employee pension benefits.
We continue to meet with all of our employee associations to communicate the impact of pension cost
increases. As an increasingly greater portion of the City’s budget is diverted to pay for pension and healthcare
costs, there will be increasingly less funding available for existing jobs and services. A successful resolution to
this matter demands the participation of both current and future employees.
The City of Palo Alto was one of the first cities to implement a “second tier” pension benefit to reduce the cost
of retirement benefits for new employees who are classified as miscelleaneous employees. Public safety
employees have not yet agreed to a second tier formula for new hires. While the short-term savings derived
from reducing pension benefits for new employees is minimal, the savings will be substantial over the course of
the next 10-20 years. Unfortunately, these savings are not enough to mitigate the impact of escalating pension
costs. Without question, additional benefit modifications will be required in order to preserve vital public
services.
Most governmental agencies, including the City of Palo Alto, pay the vast majority of employee pension costs.
In the City of Palo Alto, miscellaneous employees contribute relatively little to their pension funds and public
safety employees do not make any contribution to their pension costs. Changes to employee contribution rates
and benefit formulas for future years’ service are two of the options that must be discussed going forward. This
will certainly include the employees fully paying their own share and could include employees contributing
toward the City’s escalating costs for employee pension benefits.
HEALTHCARE COSTS
Healthcare cost increases in FY 2012, while not as substantial as pension increases at this time, will nonetheless
contribute significantly to the growth in employee benefit costs. While all non-safety employees recently
assumed a small portion (approximately 4 percent) of healthcare costs for themselves and their dependents,
the City still pays the vast majority (96 percent) of these costs. Under the current plan for non-safety employees,
it will take three or four years to reach the point where employees are paying 10 percent of their healthcare
costs. The City pays 100 percent of healthcare costs for public safety employees and their dependents as those
employees have not yet agreed to assume any portion of these costs.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Benefits Fund
355
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Interest Income 1,252,877 1,293,400 280,200 274,200 (6,000)
Other Income 37,932,011 32,806,009 33,819,209 39,322,609 5,503,400
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $39,184,888 $34,099,409 $34,099,409 $39,596,809 $5,497,400
Operating Expense 34,347,973 34,099,409 34,099,409 39,596,809 5,497,400
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $34,347,973 $34,099,409 $34,099,409 $39,596,809 $5,497,400
TO/FROM RESERVES $4,836,915 $0 $0 $0 $0
Workers' Compensation Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012356
Workers' Compensation Fund
OVERVIEW
In FY 2012, it is anticipated that workers compensation claim payments will remain at the FY 2011 budgeted
amount of approximately $2.9 million. The balance of expenses in this fund are primarily for excess liabiility
insurance (approximately $300,000) and third party administrator fees (approximately $275,000).
Although program costs will be remain relatively stagnant in FY 2012, departmental workers’ compensation
charges will decrease by approximately $400,000 - from $3.5 million to $3.1 million - due to a change in the
methodology for allocating investment income.
The FY 2012 budget presents the General Benefits, Workers' Compensation Insurance Program, and General
Liabilities Insurance Program as separate funds. Prior to FY 2012, these funds were reports as the General
Benefits and Insurance Fund.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Interest Income 0 0 459,700 438,000 (21,700)
Other Income 573,231 3,519,609 3,059,909 3,108,409 48,500
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $573,231 $3,519,609 $3,519,609 $3,546,409 $26,800
Operating Expense 3,727,694 3,519,609 3,519,894 3,546,409 26,515
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $3,727,694 $3,519,609 $3,519,894 $3,546,409 $26,515
TO/FROM RESERVES $(3,154,463) $0 $(285)$0 $285
Liability Insurance Fund
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 357
Liability Insurance Fund
OVERVIEW
For FY 2012, total revenues for this fund will decrease by $229,060, or 11 percent, compared to the FY 2011
adjusted budget. This change is principally due to the elimination of the excess insurance reimbursement.
Expenses will also decrease by $229,060, principally due to a reduction in liability insurance costs. Liability claim
payments are projected to remain at the FY 2011 adjusted amount of approximately $600,000.
The FY 2012 budget presents the General Benefits, Workers' Compensation Insurance Program, and General
Liabilities Insurance Program as separate funds. Prior to FY 2012, these funds were reports as the General
Benefits and Insurance Fund.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Revenue (1,179,996) 1,729,760 1,584,160 1,608,400 24,240
Interest Income 0 0 145,600 142,300 (3,300)
Other Income 46,255 290,000 290,000 40,000 (250,000)
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $(1,133,741) $2,019,760 $2,019,760 $1,790,700 $(229,060)
Operating Expense 630,923 2,019,760 2,019,760 1,790,700 (229,060)
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $630,923 $2,019,760 $2,019,760 $1,790,700 $(229,060)
TO/FROM RESERVES $(1,764,664) $0 $0 $0 $0
Retiree Health Benefit Fund
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012358
Retiree Health Benefit Fund
OVERVIEW
The Retiree Health Benefit Fund manages the payments associated with and reserves dedicated to medical
benefits granted to retired employees of the City. In FY 2012, retiree health benefit expense is $9.8 million.
The City fully funded its actuarial required contribution (ARC) in FY 2011. In FY 2012, the General Fund
contribution for the ARC is increasing by $1.1 million in comparison to the FY 2011 adjusted budget due to an
allocation methodology change. In FY 2011, the ARC allocation methodology was based on currently budgeted
full-time equivalents, while the allocation methodology used in FY 2012 allocates the General Fund ARC at a
higher level to include prior retirees.
In Fiscal Year 2012, the annual required contribution to cover the cost of retiree medical premiums for current
and future retirees is fully funded and included in the proposed budgets for the General Fund, Enterprise
Funds, and Other City Funds. This contribution includes an amortized payment of the un-funded medical
premium liabilities in the amount of approximately $6 million in addition to the current cost of medical benefit
payments of approximately $3.8 million. This amortization payment is in accordance with the
recommendations set forth by the City's actuary and is intended to fully fund the liability at the conclusion of
the amortization period. The City has established an irrevocable trust fund to account for assets accumulated to
offset the retiree medical liability for current and future retirees. The funding schedule established by the City
for current and future liabilities is in compliance with accounting standards promulgated by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB 45) for expense recognition.
The City expects to have a revised actuarial study complete by fall 2011 and will revise its General Fund and
Enterprise Fund contributions during the Fiscal Year 2012 midyear budget process.
FUND SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Interest Income 121,703 0 0 40,000 40,000
Other Income 9,698,480 9,934,262 9,734,262 9,788,659 54,397
TOTAL FUND REVENUES $9,820,183 $9,934,262 $9,734,262 $9,828,659 $94,397
Operating Expense 10,135,704 9,934,262 9,734,262 9,788,659 54,397
TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES $10,135,704 $9,934,262 $9,734,262 $9,788,659 $54,397
TO/FROM RESERVES $(315,521) $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 359
STAFFING
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
360 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Summary of Position Changes
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 361
Summary of Position Changes
FTE
GENERAL FUND
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 579.50
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
POL - Community Service Officer (0.50)
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 579.00
FY 2012 Additions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
FY 2012 Total Additions 0.60
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ATT - Senior Legal Secretary (1.00)
ATT - Claims Investigator 1.00
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (1.00)
ASD - Budget Officer 1.00
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.80)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.80
ASD - Graphic Designer (1.00)
ASD - Administrative Associate III 1.00
ASD - Budget Manager (1.00)
ASD - Chief Budget Officer 1.00
POL - Animal Services Specialist (1.00)
POL - Animal Services Specialist II 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.80)
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 0.80
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
PCE - Administrative Associate I 0.50
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.35)
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions (0.25)
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012362
FY 2012 Elimination or Reduction
ATT - Claims Investigator (0.60)
CSD - Coordinator Recreation Programs (0.50)
CSD - Program Assistant I (0.50)
PCE - Administrative Assistant II (1.00)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.60)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.80)
PWD - Administrative Associate I (1.00)
FY 2012 Total Elimination or Reduction (5.00)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS 574.35
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 365.72
FY 2011 Position Adjustments
UTL - Utilities Installer/Repairer (1.00)
UTL - Coordinator, Utility Projects 1.00
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 365.72
FY 2012 New Positions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.50
PWD - Asst Director, Environmental Services 1.00
UTL - Utilities Key Account Representative 1.00
FY 2012 Total New Positions 2.50
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.20)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.20
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
PWD - Assistant Plant Manager 1.00
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
PWD - Operator II, WQC 1.00
PWD - Business Analyst (1.00)
PWD - Senior Technologist 1.00
PWD - Executive Assistant (2.00)
PWD - Management Analyst 2.00
PWD - Landfill Technician (1.00)
FTE
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Summary of Position Changes
363
PWD - Coord, PW Projects 1.00
PWD - Mgr Environmental Compliance (1.00)
PWD - Watershed Protection Mgr 1.00
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic (1.00)
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic - Welding 1.00
UTL - Coordinator Utility Projects (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
UTL - Utility Engineering Estimator (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD (0.10)
PWD - Senior Engineer (0.50)
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions (0.60)
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
ASD - Manager Energy Risk (1.00)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (1.20)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED ENTERPRISE FUND POSITIONS 366.42
OTHER FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 73.38
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
ASD (IT) - Chief Information Officer (title change) (1.00)
ASD (IT) - Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer (title change) 1.00
POL - Community Service Officer 0.50
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 73.88
FY 2012 New Positions
None
FY 2012 Total New Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD (IT) - Administrative Associate II (1.00)
ASD (IT) - Administrative Assistant 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.20)
FTE
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012364
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 0.20
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
PWD - Senior Engineer 0.50
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Management 0.35
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions 0.85
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (0.40)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 74.33
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1015.10
FTE
Table of Organization
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 365
Table of Organization
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
GENERAL FUND
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Claims Investigator (3), (4)0.60 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.40
Deputy City Attorney 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Secretary - Confidential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Services Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Secretary to City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Legal Secretary (4)2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00)
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 10.60 9.60 9.60 9.00 (0.60)
City Auditor
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Performance Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY AUDITOR 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
TOTAL CITY CLERK 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00
City Manager
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (5), (12)1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012366
Administrative Associate III (2), (5)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer (17) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY MANAGER 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00
Administrative Services Department
Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.00
Administrative Associate III (9)0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (8)0.60 0.60 0.60 1.50 0.90
Assistant Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Budget Officer (6)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Business Analyst 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buyer 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00
Chief Budget Officer (10)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Administrator 2.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (8)0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (7)0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Graphic Designer (9)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Budget (10)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Real Property Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Real Property Agent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
367
Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1), (6)6.91 5.81 5.81 4.91 (0.90)
Senior Buyer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Staff Secretary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 41.95 37.49 37.49 37.69 0.20
Community Services Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Administrator Special Events 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arts and Culture Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Child Care 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Recreation Programs (14)5.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 (0.50)
Cubberley Center and Human Svc Div Mgr 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Golf & Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Division Manager, Recreation & Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Rec and Youth Sciences 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Equipment Mechanic 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Maintenance Person 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Instructor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Arts 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Open Space and Parks Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012368
Park Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maintenance Person 11.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Parks and Open Space Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Crew - Lead 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Producer Arts/Science Programs 13.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Program Assistant I (14)7.75 7.50 7.50 7.00 (0.50)
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Ranger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sprinkler System Repairer 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Superintendent, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Open Space 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervisor, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Recreation Program 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 94.25 74.50 74.50 73.50 (1.00)
Fire
Administrative Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Battalion Chief 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief OPS/Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
EMT Basic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00
Fire Captain 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 0.00
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00
Fire Inspector 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Apparatus Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
369
Hazardous Materials Fire Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OES Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Paramedic Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL FIRE 122.69 120.74 120.74 120.74 0.00
Human Resources Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Human Resources Assistant - Conf 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Human Resources Representative 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Manager, Employee Relations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Human Resources & Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Risk and Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Human Resources Administrator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Library Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Circulation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Head, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012370
Library Assistant 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00
Library Associate 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Services Manager 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Specialist 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00
Manager, Main Library Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Librarian 8.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00
TOTAL LIBRARY DEPARTMENT 42.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 0.00
Planning and Community Environment
Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (12)2.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50
Administrative Associate II (14)3.80 3.80 3.80 2.80 (1.00)
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrator, Planning & Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Building Inspector Specialist 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building/Planning Technician 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Planning and Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Transportation Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Traffic Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Transp Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Director, Planning and Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
371
Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Managing Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permit Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planner 6.05 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00
Plan Checking Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Planner 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Transportation Manager 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transportation Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 48.85 44.60 44.60 44.10 (0.50)
Police Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Animal Attendant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Animal Control Officer 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00
Animal Services Specialist (11)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Animal Services Specialist II (11)1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Assistant Chief of Police 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Communications Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communication Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 0.00
Community Service Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Crime Analyst 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy Director Technical Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Parking Enforcement Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Enforcement Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012372
Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Police Officer 50.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 0.00
Police Officer Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist II 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Police Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Coordinator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Property and Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Safety Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Superintendent, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Police Services 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL POLICE 161.50 157.00 156.50 156.50 0.00
Public Works Department
Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (16)1.70 1.70 1.70 0.70 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Public Works 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
373
Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Public Works Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00
Equipment Parts Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facilities Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Maintenance - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (16)0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Manager, Maintenance Operations (15)0.12 0.12 0.12 0.92 0.80
Managing Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Project Manager 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00
Senior Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (16)0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 (0.60)
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012374
Supervisor, Facilities Management (13), (15)1.95 1.95 1.95 0.80 (1.15)
Supervisor, Inspec/Surveying, Public Works 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Traffic Control Maintainer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance II 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 63.67 58.57 58.57 55.82 (2.75)
GENERAL FUND AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 622.51 579.50 579.00 574.35 (4.65)
1 Add 0.10 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate III
3 Drop 0.6 FTE Claims Investigator
4 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to Claims Investigator
5 Reclass 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III
6 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to Budget Officer
7 Title change from Director, ASD to Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer
8 Reclass 0.8 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE from Utilities Fund
9 Reclass 1.0 FTE Graphic Designer to Administrative Associate III
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Budget Manager to Chief Budget Officer
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist to Animal Services Specialist II
12 Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from City Manager's Office to Planning, Community and Environment
13 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from Other Funds
14 Eliminated position due to budget constraints
15 Reclass 0.80 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management to Mgr Maintenance Operations
16 Eliminated position due to department reorganization
17 Title change from Assistant City Manager to Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
375
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Public Works Department
Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater
Treatment
Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Assistant Director, Environmental Services (2)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Plant Manager (5)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.00
Asst Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Engineer 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst (7)1.13 1.13 1.13 0.13 (1.00)
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Coordinator Environmental Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, PW Projects (10)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Coordinator Recycling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Electrician - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00
Executive Assistant (8)2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 (2.00)
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012376
Industrial Waste Assistant Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Laboratory Tech, Water Quality Control Plant 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Landfill Technician (10)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Management Analyst (8)0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Manager, Environmental Compliance (11)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Environmental Control Program 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Manager, Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 0.00
Manager, Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Operator II, WQC (6)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Refuse Disposal Attendant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Engineer (15)2.45 2.75 2.75 2.25 (0.50)
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Operator, Water Quality Control 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Senior Technologist (7)0.13 0.13 0.13 1.13 1.00
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (9)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Quality Control Operations (5), (6)5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 (2.00)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
377
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Truck Driver 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator II 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Protection Mgr (11)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS - ENTERPRISE 114.63 115.01 115.01 115.31 0.30
Utilities Department
Administration, Electric, Gas, Wastewater
Collection and Water
Account Representatives 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Accounting Specialist 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Assistant Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Resource Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Resource Planner 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (4)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Assistant Director Customer Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Admin Svc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Res Mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Business Analyst (13), (14)2.87 2.87 2.87 4.87 2.00
Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cathodic Protection Technician/Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012378
Chief Electric Underground Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Inspector Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Safety & Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Projects (13)4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Customer Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (4)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Director, Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electric Project Engineer 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrical Assistant I 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Electrician - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Electrician - Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Engineering Manager, Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Mgr, Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Equipment Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Field Service Person Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gas System Technician 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
379
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Mechanic (12)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic - Welding (12)1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Manager Utilities Telecommunication 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Energy Risk (1)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Field and Customer Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr, Customer Svc and Meter Reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Marketing Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr, Util Operations Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Rates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Marketing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Meter Reader - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Shops Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00
Planner 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Power Engineer 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Project Engineer 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Project Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Resource Planner 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1)0.60 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.50
Senior Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Market Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012380
Senior Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Resource Originator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Resource Planner 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00
Senior Utilities Field Services Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Water System Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Operations & Programs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervising Project Engineer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Utility Construction Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Util Meter Readers & Field Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water, Gas, Wastewater 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Transmission 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
System Operator Scheduler 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Accounting Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Compliance Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Engineer Estimator (14)5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Utilities Engineer Estimator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Field Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer 11.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Welding 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Utilities Key Account Representative (3)3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
Utilities Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Rate Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utility Compliance Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
381
Utility Compliance Technician - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utility Market Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Water Meter/Cross Connection Technician 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Water Meter Representative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Meter Repairer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
TOTAL UTILITIES 241.61 250.71 250.71 251.11 0.40
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS POSITIONS 356.24 365.72 365.72 366.42 0.70
1 Drop 1.0 FTE Manager, Energy Risk and add 0.50 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services
3 Add 1.0 FTE Utilities Key Account Representative
4 Reclass 0.20 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE to General Fund
5 Reclass 1.0 FTE Supervisor WCQ Operations to Assistant Plant Manager
6 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC
7 Reclass 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist
8 Reclass 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst, PW
9 Eliminate 0.2 FTE Supervisor PW Operations due to department reorganization
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protection Mgr
12 Reclass 1.0 FTE Maintenance Mechanic to Maintenance Mechanic, Welding
13 Reclass 1.0 FTE Coordinator Utility Projects to Business Analyst
14 Reclass 1.0 FTE Utility Engineering Estimator to Business Analyst
15 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer to Other Funds
OTHER FUNDS
Printing and Mailing Services
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Mailing Services Specialist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 1.00 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012382
Offset Equipment Operator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor Reproduction and Mailing 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES 4.05 1.57 1.57 1.57 0.00
Technology
Administrative Assistant (1)0.07 0.07 0.07 1.07 1.00
Administrative Associate II (1)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Administrative Associate III 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00
Business Analyst 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Dir of Information Technology/Chief Info Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Manager, Information Technology 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00
Technologist 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY 30.65 30.41 30.41 30.41 0.00
Equipment Management
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
383
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 0.00
Special Revenue
Accounting Specialist 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
CDBG Coordinator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00
Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE 1.15 1.65 2.15 2.15 0.00
Capital
Administrative Associate I 1.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Associate Engineer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Cement Finisher - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00
Engineering Technician III 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (4)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Manager, Maintenance Operations 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Project Manager 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Senior Engineer (2)2.25 2.05 2.05 2.55 0.50
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (4)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Facilities Management (3)0.05 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.35
Supervisor, Inspection/Surv Public Works 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012384
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
TOTAL CAPITAL 24.67 23.67 23.67 24.12 0.45
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 76.60 73.38 73.88 74.33 0.45
1 Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant
2 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer from Public Works-Enterprise Funds
3 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from General Fund
4 Eliminate position due to department reorganization
TOTAL CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1,055.35 1,018.60 1,018.60 1,015.10 (3.50)
Authorization is given to create no more than 7.0 FTE temporary overstrength positions. Overstrength positions are
justified by business needs and provide a vacancy to allow for cross training of a critical classification. These interim
positions facilitate organizational transitions and succession planning in the cases of long-term disability, retirement,
and critical vacancies. This action responds to the City Auditor's recommendation number four in the Audit of Work-
ers Compensation (Issued 04-09-05).
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 385
MISCELLANEOUS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
386 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Palo Alto: The City
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 387
Palo Alto: The City
alo Alto is located on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula in a valley between the bay and the coastal
mountain range to the west about 40 miles south of San Francisco. The town of approximately 65,400
people, in Santa Clara County, is one of a constellation of towns and cities ringing San Francisco Bay
and comprising the greater nine-county San Francisco Bay Region, with a population of approximately
six million. While it is not a significant population center, Palo Alto enjoys
international name recognition and people from all over the world come to
participate in education or research at Stanford University, conduct business with
the technology firms of the Silicon Valley area, or receive medical care at the
Stanford Medical Center. Palo Alto's historic ties to Stanford University and the
various institutions affiliated with it, either formally or loosely, creates a much
more cosmopolitan character here than evidenced in many other Bay Area
communities of similar size.
Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods are distinctive, each with its own character
and ambiance. Most neighborhoods also have resident and homeowner
organizations, which provide a forum for interacting with city government on
neighborhood issues.
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) has an international reputation for
excellence. Over 95 percent of PAUSD students enter college and the drop-out
rate is approximately 1 percent. In addition, District students score well above the
average on standardized tests.
Palo Alto enjoys access to medical care unsurpassed almost anywhere in the world. Two medical facilities of
national or international stature are located here, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and the Stanford Medical
Center.
Palo Alto is home to a vibrant business community, with over 91,000 jobs and 4,000 businesses located in the
city. The local economy is primarily based on banking, insurance, technology, real estate, as well as the
wholesale, retail, and service industries.
From city-owned parks in the baylands where birds and aquatic life flourish in a natural habitat to the trails and
picnic areas in our grassy foothill preserves, Palo Alto is a city that boasts 34 parks. Indeed, one-third of Palo
Alto's 26 square miles is open space, which complements Stanford University's thousands of acres of rolling
hills and botanical preserves.
WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG
P
Gamble Gardens
Reserve Policies
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012388
Reserve Policies
AS REVISED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 9, 2008
GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY
One of the key components of a financially stable organization is the adherence to a policy of maintaining an
appropriate level of reserves. The Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) recommends, at a
minimum, that general purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain reserves (unrestricted fund balance)
in their General Fund of no less than two months of operating revenues or expenditures, or a minimum of
approximately 15 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. The GFOA further recommends that
reserve levels be directly related to the degree of uncertainty the local government faces: the greater the
uncertainty, the greater the financial resources necessary. Since reserves are used to mitigate risk, during these
uncertain economic times, it is crucial that the City continue its practice of adhering to this GFOA guidance. This
will provide the City with resources to cope with unforeseen expenditures, unanticipated events, or revenue
shortfalls and can be utilized to help protect the budget against known risks (additional state takeaways) or
unknown risks (a major natural disaster).
BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE (BSR)
The City's BSR is maintained in the range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures, with a
target of 18.5 percent. Any reserve level below 15 percent requires City Council approval. At the discretion of
the City Manager, a reserve balance above 18.5 percent may be transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve within
the Capital Fund. The purpose of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is to fund unbudgeted,
unanticipated one-time costs. The BSR is not meant to fund ongoing, recurring General Fund operating
expenditures. The City's intent is to fund ongoing programs and services with ongoing dollars.
BSR History: The City has held a long-standing practice of maintaining a BSR of no less than 15 percent of
General Fund operating expenses, as depicted below:
Over the years, the City's BSR has served as a repository for unspent operating funds at year-end, as well to fund
one-time unexpected needs that arise outside of the regular budget planning process. Prudent financial
management practices dictate that the BSR not be used to fund or to solve on-going, recurring financial needs.
The City has adhered to this practice and has not used the BSR to provide ongoing budget stabilization during
this period of economic downturns.
Credit Rating Agencies: Credit rating agencies consider General Fund reserves as a critical component of
strong municipal management. According to Moody's Investors Service, reserves are an important factor in the
analysis of a municipality's fiscal health and a municipality's fiscal policies should include a plan for maintaining
reserves. Rating agencies view reserves favorably, thus improving a municipality's rating and its chances for
receiving low cost funding for important projects. The City is proud to report that both Moody's and Standard
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Ending BSR Balance 22,731 27,480 26,102 24,747 27,396 26,467 27,044
% of Total Expenses 18.10% 19.00% 18.50%
General Fund BSR Summary
17.70% 20.80% 17.50% 17.10%
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Reserve Policies
389
and Poor's (S&P) awarded their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to the City's General Obligation Bonds for library
and community center capital improvements in 2010. This rating has been awarded to only a few cities in
California. Such a rating helped the City obtain low cost construction funding for these important capital
projects. These ratings demonstrate that Palo Alto's prudent financial management and fiscal strength are
viewed most favorably by the credit agencies.
CAPITAL FUND RESERVE POLICY
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE (IR)
The Infrastructure Reserve (IR) provides a mechanism for financing the City's infrastructure maintenance and
rehabilitation requirements. It was originally created as a means to accumulate funding required to complete a
10-year, $100 million infrastructure rehabilitation program that would repair or renovate existing buildings and
facilities, streets and sidewalks, parks and open space and transportation systems. Because of the need to
maintain infrastructure on a systematic basis, it was decided that the IR would act in perpetuity as the source of
funding for General Fund infrastructure rehabilitation requirements.
From time to time, the Council has used the IR to fund new capital projects. However, the Council has not
changed the original policy, adopted when the IR was established, to prioritize the care and maintenance of
existing infrastructure over the acquisition of new infrastructure.
The primary purpose of the IR is to the fund projects identified in the original Infrastructure Management Plan
(IMP), or any other project not identified in the plan but which are critical to the maintenance of existing
infrastructure. Secondarily, should Council choose, the IR may be used for major capital projects involving the
acquisition or renovation of infrastructure not previously included in the IMP.
Unspent monies from General Fund capital projects are returned to the IR and retained within the Capital Fund.
Investment income from this reserve will also be retained within the IR to fund future capital project needs.
Demographic Statistics
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012390
Demographic Statistics
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Fiscal Year
City of Palo Alto
Population
City of Palo Alto
Unemployment
Rate (%)
City of Palo Alto
School
Population
Santa Clara
County
Population
City Population
% of County
Santa Clara Total
County ($000)
Personal Income
2002 60,500 3.7% 9,952 1,719,565 3.52% 77,548,912
2003 60,465 4.1% 10,151 1,729,917 3.50% 77,680,349
2004 60,246 3.2% 10,341 1,731,422 3.48% 82,638,917
2005 61,674 2.8% 10,527 1,759,585 3.51% 86,400,000 *
2006 62,148 2.5% 10,607 1,773,258 3.50% 91,600,000 *
2007 62,615 2.6% 11,056 1,808,056 3.46% 96,900,000 *
2008 63,367 3.5% 11,329 1,837,075 3.45% 107,900,000 *
2009 64,484 6.5% 11,329 1,857,621 3.47% 109,700,000 *
2010 65,408 6.2% 11,565 1,880,876 3.48% 99,600,000 *
2011 Not available at this time
SOURCES:
California State Department of Finance
State Employment Development Office
Palo Alto Unified School District
*California State Department of Transportation Forecasts
Glossary
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 391
Glossary
KEY BUDGET TERMS
Adjusted Budget: The adjusted budget represents the adopted budget including changes made during the
fiscal year.
Adopted Budget: The adopted budget is the annual City budget approved by the City Council on or before
June 30.
Appropriation: The allocation of an expense budget for a particular project or program usually for a specific
period of time.
Benchmarking Measures: Included in the budget document in place of former impact measures. Benchmarks
are shown for each department and where available at the division level in each department. The benchmarks
show input, output, efficiency, and effectiveness measures. Where possible they are related to the City Auditor's
Service Efforts and Accomplishments report.
Budget Stabilization Reserve: The portion of the fund balance to be used as a supplement to the regular
budget when unexpected events that reduce revenue or create obligations that significantly impact the
current-year budget occur. Examples include events such as state government action, a downturn in the
economy or natural disaster that.
Capital Budget: A plan of proposed capital outlays and the means of financing them for the current fiscal
period. In a two-year budget, the second year of the Capital Improvement Program is adopted-in-concept.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The Capital Improvement Fund accounts for projects related to the
acquisition, expansion, or rehabilitation of the City’s buildings, equipment, parks, streets, and other public
infrastructure.
Capital Projects Fund: A fund created to account for all resources to be used for the construction or
acquisition of designated fixed assets by a governmental unit except those financed by proprietary or fiduciary
funds.
Comprehensive Plan: The Palo Alto Comprehensive 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. Its focus is on the physical form of the City. The
Adopted Budget integrates the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan into the budget process.
Cost Accounting: The branch of accounting that provides for the assembling and recording of all the elements
of cost incurred to accomplish a purpose, to carry on an activity or operation, or to complete a unit of work or a
specific job.
Enterprise Funds: Enterprise funds account for City operations that are financed and operated in a manner
similar to private enterprise. Costs of providing service to the public are covered by user charges, grant funds,
and impact fees. The City of Palo Alto owns and operates its own utilities with the exception of refuse hauling
and collection, which is contracted with an outside firm.
Fiscal Agent: A bank or other corporate fiduciary that performs the function of paying, on behalf of the
governmental unit, or other debtor, interest on debt or principal of debt when due.
Fiscal Year: A 12-month period of time to which the annual budget applies and at the end of which a
governmental unit determines its financial position and the results of operations.
Glossary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012392
Fixed Assets: Assets of a long-term character that are intended to continue to be held or used, such as land,
buildings, machinery, furniture, and other equipment.
Funds: Local government budgets are made up of funds, which help to organize and account for restricted
resources. Each fund is considered a separate accounting entity.
Governmental Funds: A generic classification used to refer to all funds other than proprietary and fiduciary
funds. The capital projects fund is one example of the type of funds referred to as “Governmental Funds.”
Infrastructure Assets: Roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets, sidewalks, drainage systems, and lighting
systems installed for the common good.
Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP): A portion of the General Fund capital improvement program which
focuses on rehabilitating the City's infrastructure. In 1998-99, an outside consultant on the City's infrastructure
prepared a report known as the Adamson report. Within this report the City's infrastructure was catalogued
and ranked based on when the infrastructure needed to be upgraded or replaced and the cost for each item. At
that time, the City Council decided to establish a plan using the Adamson report as a guide for both timeline
and cost.
Internal Service Funds: These funds provide services to City departments and recover their costs through user
charges. For example Vehicle Replacement Fund is an Internal Service Fund managing the replacement and
maintenance of the City fleet.
Method of Accounting: The City's General Fund budget is developed using a modified accrual basis of
accounting, with revenues being recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures recorded when
the liability is incurred. Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds are budgeted on a generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) basis, which for Proprietary Funds is on a full accrual accounting basis.
Operating Transfer: Amounts transferred between funds, not considered a revenue or expense. For example,
legally authorized transfers from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the resources are to be
expended.
Pay-As-You-Go-Basis: A term used to describe the financial policy of a governmental unit that finances all of
its capital outlays from current revenues rather than by borrowing.
Proposed Budget: The proposed budget is the budget that is sent to the Finance Committee by the City
Manager. The proposed budget, including changes made by the Finance Committee during their review, is
approved by the Council and then becomes the adopted budget.
Reimbursements: Interfund transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures or
expenses initially made from it but that properly apply to another fund. For example, the Enterprise Funds
reimburse the Technology Fund for CIP projects from which the Enterprise Funds benefit.
Reserve: Represents the portion of fund balance set aside for financing future capital improvements or the
outlay of capital projects in any given year, and addressing one-time emergency needs.
Revenues: Revenues include compensation received by the project for specific services to the public (external
revenues), as well as revenues received from other funds (internal revenues).
Special Revenue Funds: These funds account for the proceeds derived from specific revenue sources that are
legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. The Street Improvement Fund (SIF) is a Special
Revenue Fund that derives its funding from state gas tax revenues. Capital appropriations from the SIF must be
spent on the construction and maintenance of the road network system of the City.
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 393
Americans with Disabilities Act
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990,
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVIDED
IN OTHER ACCESSIBLE FORMATS.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
ADA Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329-2550
Americans with Disabilities Act
Visit the City’s Website at:
www.CityofPaloAlto.org
Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed
Capital Budget
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto i
James Keene
City Manager
Pamela Antil
Assistant City Manager
Lalo Perez
Director of Administrative Services
David Ramberg
Assistant Director of Administrative Services
Joe Saccio
Deputy Director of Administrative Services
Greg Scharff
Finance Committee Chair
CITY COUNCIL
Sid Espinosa, Mayor
Yiaway Yeh, Vice Mayor
Patrick Burt
Larry Klein
Greg Scharff
Karen Holman
Gail Price
Greg Schmid
Nancy Shepherd
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Capital Budget
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012ii
Quality - Superior delivery of services.
Courtesy - Providing service with respect and concern.
Efficiency - Productive, effective use of resources.
Integrity - Straight-forward, honest and fair relations.
Innovation - Excellence in creative thought and implementation.
The
City of
Palo Alto’s Values
The government of
the City of Palo Alto
exists to promote and sustain
a superior quality of life
in Palo Alto.
In partnership
with the community,
our goal is to deliver
cost-effective services
in a personal, responsive,
and innovative manner.
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto iii
Budget Acknowledgements
Budget Document Producers
Budget Staff
Amy Javelosa-Rio
Sherry Nikzat
Christine Paras
Gail Wilcox
Dale Wong
Technical Advisor
Myrna McCaleb
Special Contributors
Rob Braulik
Melissa Cavallo
Libby Dame
Tarun Narayan
Dave Yuan
Department Budget Coordinators
Administrative Services Department
Nancy Nagel
City Attorney's Office
Stacy Lavelle
City Auditor's Office
Ian Hagerman
City Clerk's Office
Beth Minor
City Manager's Office
Greg Hermann
Community Services Department
Lam Do
Fire Department
Jeany Clattenburg
Human Resources Department
Elizabeth Egli
Library Department
Susan Bodenlos
Planning & Community Environment Department
Mary Figone
Police Department
Pete Hazarian
Public Works Department
Sharon Macway
Utilities Department
Dave Yuan
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FY 2012
BUDGET ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City Hall Print Shop
is a California Certified Green Business
Uses only non-toxic soy-based inks
Uses post-consumer recycled paper
Recycles all unused paper
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012iv
Capital Budget Award
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto v
California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
Certificate of Award
Excellence in Capital Budget
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Presented to the
City of Palo Alto
For meeting the criteria established to achieve the Excellence Award in the Capital Budget.
February 24, 2011
Ronnie Campbell Chu Thai, Chair
CSMFO President Professional Standards and
Recognition Committee
Dedicated Excellence in Municipal Financial Reporting
Capital Budget Award
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012vi
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto vii
Capital Improvement Program - Organizational
ENGINEERING STREETS — 3.02
0.20-Sr Engineer
0.90-Engineer
0.90-Engineer Tech III
0.10-Supv Insp/Surv PW
0.11-Surveyor PW
0.11-Surveying Asst
0.35-Administrator
0.25-Admin Assoc I
0.10-Project Eng
PARKS AND LANDSCAPE — 1.55
1.0-Architect/Park Planner
0.30-Administrator
0.25-Admin Assoc I
SIDEWALK CIP OPERATIONS — 6.95
3.00-Cement Finisher
1.00-Cement Finisher Lead
0.15-Asst Director, PW Operations
0.20-Heavy Equipment Operator-L
0.50-Mgr Maint Operator
0.50-Sr Engineer
0.10-Supv Inspector/Surveyor PW
0.60-Assoc Engineer
0.90 Engineering Technician III
STRUCTURES AND GROUNDS — 10.00
1.85-Sr Engineer
3.70-Project Engineer
1.80-Engineer
0.20-Mgr, Facilities Maint & Proj
0.50-Engineer Tech III
0.50-Project Manager
0.20-Supv Facility Mgmt
0.35-Management Analyst
0.80-Admin Assoc I
0.50 Admin Assoc III
WASTEWATER TREATMENT— 0.30
0.10-Asst Manager, WQCP
0.20-Sr Engineer
STORM DRAINAGE — 2.10
0.90-Engineer
0.80-Project Engineer
0.40-Sr Engineer
REFUSE— 0.9
0.25-Sr Engineer
0.35-Environmental Specialist
0.30-Manager, Environmental Control Program
TOTAL: 25.22 FTE
CITY FACILITIES
0.38-Program Assistant
OPEN SPACE AND SCIENCE
0.10-Program Assistant
PARKS
0.52-Program Assistant
TOTAL: 1.0 FTE
Public Works Dept
Managed Projects
Community Services Dept
Managed Projects
FISCAL YEAR 2012 POSITION TOTALS:
Capital Improvement Program
Organizational Chart
0.45-Asst Director Util Engineering
0.10-Cathodic Protection Technician Assistant
1.70-Electric Project Engineer
0.75-Electric Underground Inspector - Lead
1.30-Electrician
3.50-Engineer
0.40-Gas Systems Technician II
3.50-Project Engineer
3.55-Senior Electrical Engineer
0.85-Supervising Electric Project Engineer
0.75-Supervising Project Engineer
0.10-Cathodic Technician
2.30-Electric Assistant I
1.50-Electric Underground Inspector
0.65-Electrician - Lead
1.45-Engineering Technician III
1.00-Gas Systems Technician
4.72-Heavy Equipment Operator
4.00-Inspector, Field Services
7.70-Lineperson/Cable Splicer
2.80-Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead
1.80-Power Engineer
3.10-Sr. Project Engineer
1.19-Supervisor WGW
4.00-Util Engineer Estimator
7.88-Utility Installer/Repairer
0.54-Utility Installer/Repairer Assistant
2.76-Utility Installer/Repairer - Lead
0.76-Utilities Locator
0.42-Utl Installer Repairer Lead - Welding
1.26-Utl Installer Repairer - Welding
0.62-Water System Operator II
1.32-Water Meter Cross Connection Tech
TOTAL: 68.72 FTE
Utilities Dept
Managed Projects
Public Works Dept 25.22
Administrative Services Dept 1.20
Community Services Dept 1.00
Utilities Dept 68.72
Total Full-time 96.14
Administrative Services Dept
0.6-Sr Financial Analyst
0.6-Contracts Administrator
TOTAL: 1.20 FTE
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012viii
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto ix
MESSAGE
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012x
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xi
City Council Transmittal Letter
May 3, 2011
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
INTRODUCTION
I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Proposed Capital Budget along with the FY 2013-
2016 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan for the City of Palo Alto. This document
guides the City in the planning and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over the next
half decade. The combined FY 2012 Proposed Capital Budget, which includes the General Fund,
Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds is $72.9 million. The combined CIP Plan for FY 2013
through 2016 is $236.6 million, bringing the five-year plan to $309.5 million. Details of the proposed
capital budget by individual fund can be found in the “FY 2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund” section of
this document.
The FY 2012-2016 Proposed CIP Plan
was developed in coordination with all
City departments responsible for capital
projects. As required by City Municipal
Code, the Planning and Transportation
Commission reviewed the Proposed
CIP, and will submit its comments to
the City Council prior to the plan's
adoption.
GENERAL FUND
The FY 2012 Proposed Capital
Budget for the General Fund totals
$35.9 million, $14.9 million higher
than the FY 2011 Adopted Capital
Budget. This increase is due to the
commencement of the Measure N
bond project to renovate and
expand the Main Library ($16.2
million in FY 2012). The Measure
N bonds, approved by Palo Alto
voters in November 2008, will
provide financing in the amount
of $76 million over the next decade for capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown and
Main libraries, and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In June 2010, the City successfully sold the
first of two series of General Obligation bonds, providing $58.5 million in construction funds for these
FY 2012 Proposed Projects By Fund
12
3
1- General Fund - 49%
2- Enterprise Funds - 47%
3- Internal Service Funds - 4%
4
3
1
2
1. Land, Buildings & Facilities - 51%
2. Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3. Parks and Open Space - 10%
4. Miscellaneous - 19%
FY 2012 Proposed General Fund Projects By Category
City Council Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xii
library and community center projects. The City plans to issue a second series of bonds in 2012 to complete
the Measure N financing effort.
Proposed infrastructure reserve funding for FY 2012 projects includes $2.1 million for buildings and facilities;
$3.3 million for street maintenance and sidewalk repairs; and $2.8 million for parks and open space projects -
a total of $8.2 million. In addition, there is $3.4 million for the salaries and benefits of City staff assigned to
manage the General Fund capital projects.
Other funding sources for the Capital
Budget come from a combination of gas
tax monies, transfers from General
Fund, development impact fees, grants,
and various outside agencies.
Staff has identified only the highest
priority projects for funding. In light of
a diminishing Infrastructure Reserve
balance, of $3.8 million at the end of FY
2012, and the impact that the economic
recession has had on the General Fund,
some projects which do not pose a
health and safety issue, such as the
Cubberley Community Center and Golf Course projects, have been deferred into future years.
Highlights of FY 2012 projects are summarized in
Table 1.
The City faces a significant and rising gap in
infrastructure investment needs and available
financial resources, and it has become increasingly
difficult to make headway in erasing the General
Fund's infrastructure backlog. In 2009, staff
provided Council with information on General
Fund infrastructure requirements over the next
twenty years. This report indicated that there is a
backlog of about $302 million (in 2009 dollars) in
infrastructure repair and renovation needs. Another
$208 million (in 2009 dollars) is needed to replace
existing facilities that have exceeded their useful life
or need substantial improvements. These include
the replacement or improvement of the Municipal
Service Center, two Fire Stations, the Animal
Shelter, and the Public Safety building. The
estimated total cost of the backlog and future needs
over the next twenty years was at $510 million (in
FY 2012 General Fund Proposed Funding Sources
3
4
5
2
1
1 - Infrastructure Reserve - 28%
2 - Street Improvement Fund - 6%
3 - General Obligation Bonds -45%
4 - Other Agencies - 16%
5 - General Fund - 5%
Project # Project Name
(PO-89003) Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Project
(PE-86070) Annual Street Maintenance Project
(PF-12005)City Council Conference Room Renovations
(PO-12001) Curb and Gutter Repairs
(PE-12012) Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements
(PG-12006) Magical Bridge Playground
(PE-11000)Main Library New Construction and
Improvements
(LB-11000)New Furniture and Technology for Library
Measure N Projects
(PG-12004) Sarah Wallis Park Improvements
(PG-11003) Scott Park Improvements
(PL-12000) Transportation and Parking Improvements
TABLE 1
GENERAL FUND PROPOSED CIP PROJECTS
Highlights of Projects to be Initiated
or Constructed in Fiscal Year 2012
City Council Transmittal Letter
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xiii
2009 dollars). A summary of the infrastructure backlog is provided in the “Supplemental Information”
section of this document.
Despite the challenging economic
environment, the long-term health of the
City requires that the infrastructure needs
be addressed, as they substantially affect
the economic vitality and quality of life in
the community. In 2010, the City Council
formed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to advise the
Council on the City's infrastructure
requirements and possible financing
measures that could reduce or eliminate
the backlog and address the future needs.
The IBRC has been meeting since
November 2010. It has divided itself into 3 subcommittees: Surface projects (parks, roadways and
transportation), Above Ground projects (buildings), and Finance. The first two are in the process of working
with staff to examine the City's physical assets and to prioritize them for future work. The latter is examining
City revenue and infrastructure resources as well as potential financing instruments. The IBRC
subcommittees are expected to arrive at updated “gaps” in infrastructure and maintenance spending
requirements. The “gap” refers to the amount of annual spending required to: eliminate backlogged work on
existing infrastructure, replace or rehabilitate existing, outdated facilities, and the ongoing maintenance effort
required so that the City will not find itself in a position of having a backlog of infrastructure work in the
future. Staff will work with the IBRC to develop strategies to address these gaps in a systematic and
meaningful manner over a period of years. The results of this effort will be incorporated in the next five year
Capital Budget.
The Long Range Financial Forecast for 2010-2020 quantified the growing gap between planned and needed
funding over the next six years. The above graph shows this mounting gap. Cumulative funding over those six
years totals $66.6 million, or 35% of the estimated $187.8 million needed. The estimate of $510 million in
infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement needs illustrates the severity of the City's “structural”
infrastrucure funding deficit.
Infrastructure Funding Needed
$36
$27 $29 $30 $32 $34
$12$12$11$11$10 $10
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Do
l
l
a
r
s
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
Infrastructure Funding Needed
Annual Gen Fund Transfer to Infrastructure
City Council Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xiv
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE
The Infrastructure Reserve was
originally created in 1998 as a
mechanism to accumulate funding
required to complete a 10 year, $100
million infrastructure rehabilitation
program that would repair or
renovate existing buildings and
facilities, streets and sidewalks,
parks and open space, and
transportation systems. Because of
the need to maintain infrastructure
on a systematic basis, it was decided
that the Infrastructure Reserve
would act in perpetuity as the source
of funding for General Fund
infrastructure requirements. The General Fund transfers an average of $10.9 million each year to the
Infrastructure Reserve (from FY 2011 to FY 2015) and the Infrastructure Reserve funds an average of $11.6
million in capital projects each year. As shown in graph, the Infrastructure Reserve is being depleted rapidly
and will no longer be able to provide resources at past levels.
Over the years, the Infrastructure Reserve has been used both to rehabilitate and maintain existing City
facilities and to fund a number of new capital projects. The Proposed infrastructure reserve funding for FY
2012 addresses $8.7 million in maintenance and rehabilitation needs and $1.7 million in new capital projects.
The current level of Infrastructure Reserve funding is inadequate to deal with the General Fund's
infrastructure backlog and future maintenance needs, as well as the growing needs for replacement of existing
facilities or construction of new facilities. The projected balance of the Infrastructure Reserve at the end of
each fiscal year from FY 2012 through FY 2016 is shown in Table 2 on the next page.
Infrastructure Reserve Projected Balance
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Ba
l
a
n
c
City Council Transmittal Letter
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xv
Maintaining and enhancing funding for infrastructure replacement and reconditioning is a critical priority
for the City. With declining Infrastructure Reserve balances, identifying resources is both necessary and
challenging. Many important capital projects cannot be completed until new funding sources are found. Staff
will work with the IRBC to define the City's infrastructure gaps and recommend options to deal with the
funding deficits. It should be noted, that these needs cannot be addressed without additional sources of
revenue, cost savings, or service reductions/eliminations.
Where outside funding opportunities exist, staff continues to leverage City resources with grants, impact fees,
and other external sources. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of
2009, the City has received $1.3 million in funding for street and road rehabilitation projects.
TOP 5 PRIORITIES
Concrete actions have been taken to fulfill the City Council's Top priorities. Four of Council's Top 5 priorities
- Emergency Preparedness, Land Use and Transportation, Environmental Sustainability, and Youth Well
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
SOURCES
General Fund Annual Capital
Transfer 10,477,510 10,892,195 11,333,705 11,787,125 12,287,793 56,778,328
Interest Income 1,000,000 946,240 871,362 861,549 944,425 4,623,576
Project Reimbursements
Measure N Library Bonds 16,150,000 0 0 0 0 16,150,000
Local Agency 5,828,000 1,600,000 0 0 0 7,428,000
Gas Tax Fund 2,150,000 1,650,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 8,675,000
Development Impact Fees -Park 0 220,000 0 220,000 0 440,000
Stanford Research Park Traffic
Mitigation Impact Fees 47,400 0 0 0 47,400
Total Sources $35,652,910 $15,308,435 $13,830,067 $14,493,674 $14,857,218 $94,142,304
USES
Budgeted CIP Projects 35,955,292 16,182,575 15,751,994 14,626,005 12,846,980 95,362,846
Total Uses $35,955,292 $16,182,575 $15,751,994 $14,626,005 $12,846,980 $95,362,846
Sources over (short)(302,382) (874,140) (1,921,927) (132,331) 2,010,238 (1,220,542)
Infrastructure Reserve Balance,
beginning 4,128,342 3,825,960 2,951,820 1,029,893 897,562 4,128,342
Infrastructure Reserve Balance,
ending
$3,825,960 $2,951,820 $1,029,893 $897,562 $2,907,800 $2,907,800
FIVE-YEAR PLAN
TABLE 2: Projected Infastructure Reserve
City Council Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xvi
Being - will receive $69.1 million in funding in the FY 2012-2016 CIP Plan. This is in addition to the $81.9
million appropriated during the last five years.
Funding for capital projects corresponding to Council's Top 5 priorities are shown in Table 3.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS CIP
The total Proposed Capital Budget for all
Enterprise Funds is $34.4 million in FY
2012. The CIP for the City's Enterprise
Funds remains a critical part of the
infrastructure commitment to our citizen-
customers. The Electric, Water, Gas, and
Wastewater Collection funds continue to
pursue an aggressive infrastructure
improvement schedule in the proposed CIP.
For example, the City continues to
proactively repair and replace utility poles,
electrical substations, gas and water mains,
and the plant system necessary to maintain a reliable flow of electric, gas and water services to customers.
One notable project in the Electric Fund is the implementation of Smart Grid Technology. This project will
help the City better manage energy use, reduce energy costs and meet customer demands for information. In
addition, the Electric Fund plans to pilot the deployment of light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting
technology in the community to produce operational energy savings. In the Refuse Fund, the CIP contains a
project for closure of the last remaining open area at the landfill. In the Water Fund, the CIP contains a
proposed project that would expand the existing recycled water delivery system and provide another supply
source to the Stanford Research Park area of the City.
In April 2005, Palo Alto property owners approved a storm drain fee increase, which escalates annually based
on the local Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 6%, whichever is less. These revenues provide resources for
Storm Drain CIP projects. Due to the discrepancy between escalating construction costs for planned and
completed capital projects (particularly the San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station project) and
the modest Storm Drainage Fee increases allowed by the 2005 ballot measure, the Storm Drainage Fund does
not have adequate resources to fund all of its capital project needs. The Council-appointed Storm Drain
Oversight Committee has prioritized projects to match available resources. At the present time, there is not
sufficient funding for two projects identified in the storm drain fee ballot measure (Clara Drive Connection to
the Matadero Pump Station and Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements).
7
6
1
2
5
34
1- Electric Fund -26%
2- Fiber Optics Fund -1%
3- Gas Fund - 23%
4- Water Fund - 14%
5- Wastewater Collection Fund - 12%
6- Refuse Fund - 18%
7- Storm Drainage Fund - 6%
FY 2012 Enterprise Funds - CIP By Individual Fund
City Council Transmittal Letter
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xvii
FY 2007-2011 FY 2012- 2016
CIP Adopted CIP Plan
Budget Total
(PO-12003)Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program $0 $200,000 $200,000
(WS-08002)Emergency Water Supply Project 39,522,647 0 $39,522,647
(WS-09000)Seismic Water System Upgrades 800,000 9,720,000 10,520,000
Total $40,322,647 $9,920,000 $50,242,647
(AS-10001)Sustainability Contingency 100,000 0 $100,000
(EL-10009)Street Light System Conversion Project 1,363,000 3,200,000 $4,563,000
(EL-11016)Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 135,083 0 $135,083
(OS-00002)Open Space Lakes and Ponds Maintenance 231,091 170,000 $401,091
(RF-09003)Recycling in Business Districts 325,000 0 $325,000
(VR-07002)Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofits 685,000 0 $685,000
(WQ-06014)Disinfection Facility Improvement Program Project $11,470,000 $0 $11,470,000
(WS-07001)Water Recycling Facilities 1,070,000 25,500,000 $26,570,000
Total $15,379,174 $28,870,000 $44,249,174
(PE-00104)San Antonio Medians 1,932,274 0 1,932,274
(PE-06011)Street Median Improvements 0 624,000 624,000
(PE-11011)Highw ay 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project 375,981 0 375,981
(PE-13011)Charleston Arastradero/Corridor Project 1,209,545 4,000,000 5,209,545
(PE-86070)Street Maintenance $13,744,376 $18,443,000 $32,187,376
(PL-00026)Safe Routes to School 706,840 697,000 1,403,840
(PL-04010)Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation Project 289,497 250,000 539,497
(PL-05030)Traffic Signal Upgrades 760,000 1,050,000 1,810,000
(PL-06002)Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan 475,000 0 475,000
(PL-07002)El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Streetscape and
Intersection Improvements
1,818,000 0 1,818,000
(PL-11001)Dinah SummerHill Pedestrian/Bicycle Path 300,000 0 300,000
(PL-11002)California Avenue -Transit Hub Corridor Project 550,000 1,175,000 1,725,000
(PL-11003)Palo Alto Traffic Signal Central System Upgrade 400,000 0 400,000
(PL-11004)Alma Street Traffic Signal Improvements 699,000 0 699,000
(PL-12000)Transportation and Parking Improvements 0 1,675,000 1,675,000
(PO-05054)Street Lights Improvements 467,332 700,000 1,167,332
(PO-11000)Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 100,000 200,000 300,000
(PO-11001)Thermoplastic Marking and Striping 50,000 200,000 250,000
(RF-07001)Relocation of Landfill Facilities 1,500,000 0 1,500,000
(RF-10003)Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area 875,000 0 875,000
Total $26,252,845 $29,014,000 $55,266,845
(PG-12006)Magical Bridge Playground $0 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Total $0 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Grand Total $81,954,666 $69,104,000 $151,058,666
Youth Well Being
Emergency Preparedness
Environmental Sustainability
TABLE 3
Land Use and Transportation
Summary of New and Existing Projects
as Part of the City Council Top 5 Priorities
Project
City Council Transmittal Letter
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xviii
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
The Technology Fund has a total proposed CIP budget of $2.6 million in FY 2012. Technology projects
enhance service delivery to the community and to City staff through the efficient and effective
implementation of information technology. Projects proposed for FY 2012 include:
• Enhancements to the City's Utility Customer Billing System
• Implementation of state-of-the-art Library software
• Replacement of the City's voice communications systems
In FY 2012, we continue our efforts to identify the optimal size and composition of the City's vehicle and
equipment fleet. This has resulted in reductions to the size of the City's fleet and increased utilization. As this
effort unfolds, replacements are limited to urgently needed vehicles and equipment. As such, the Vehicle
Replacement Fund has no proposed CIP budget for FY 2012. Instead, vehicle replacements will be made on
as needed-basis by Budget Amendment Ordinance.
PROJECT COORDINATION
As in the past, the City staff has planned proposed Utility capital projects, such as main replacements, to
coincide with street projects. It would be problematic to accelerate scheduled street maintenance and
sidewalk replacement projects because of the need to coordinate with Utility capital projects. Staff has also
reviewed potential Utility project impacts in special master planning areas and in City parks and open space.
While no major conflicts were identified, plans for increased emergency water storage, for example, will
require close coordination in the future, since work may take place in park areas and may involve public right-
of-way issues.
CAPITAL BUDGET AWARD
In February 2011, the City's 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget document received, for the
fifth consecutive time, the “Excellence in Budgeting Award” from the California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers (CSMFO). This award recognizes the CIP document as an outstanding public communication tool
that conveys a wide range of information about the City's CIP projects. The award reflects the commitment of
the City Council and staff to meeting the highest standards of governmental budgeting.
CONCLUSION
In these difficult economic times, the proposed Capital Plan was developed to meet Council's ongoing
infrastructure priorities while optimizing City resources on the highest priority projects. By allocating $35.9
million in the General Fund, $34.4 million in Enterprise Funds, and $2.6 million in Internal Service Funds in
FY 2012, the City's current infrastructure priorities are being addressed. The City's ability to dedicate this
level of resources to the CIP is due, in part, to a number of specific, one-time funding sources that support
specialized efforts. For example, City voters approved Measure N in 2008, which will fund a comprehensive
investment in City library facilities. In addition, a new playground at Mitchell Park will be funded by the
Friends of the Magical Bridge. Although challenges lie ahead, significant strides are being made in bolstering
City Council Transmittal Letter
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xix
the physical foundation of our community. We must continue to make addressing the infrastructure funding
gap a priority in order to protect the City's capital investments.
James Keene
City Manager
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xx
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxii
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxiii
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
iii Budget Acknowledgements
v Capital Budget Award
vii Capital Improvement Program - Organizational Chart
MESSAGE
xi City Council Transmittal Letter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEWS
1 The Capital Budget Process and Document
9 Summary of Capital Improvement Program Revenues
18 Debt Policy and Obligations
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
25 2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
27 CIP General Fund Financial Summary
28 2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
40 FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund — Total Expenditures
41 FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund — Total Funding Sources
42 FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects — Total Expenditures by Category
43 FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects — Total Funding Sources
44 General Fund CIP Projects and Funding Sources - Five Year Plan
45 General Fund Capital Projects Budgeted
47 FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
CAPITAL FUND PROJECTS
53 General Fund Overview - Capital Improvement Program
GENERAL FUND PROJECTS
59 Infrastructure Map
Buildings and Facilities
63 PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
64 PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement
65 PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements
66 PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improvements
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxiv
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
67 PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance
68 PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Preventer Installation
69 PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet Replacement
70 PF-12005 Council Conference Room Renovations
71 PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement
72 PF-16000 Cubberley Community Center Site-Wide Electrical Systems Replacement
73 PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades
74 PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement
75 PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements
76 AC-12001 Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath
77 PF-10002 Lot J Structure Repair
78 PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical System Upgrade
79 PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electrical Systems Replacement
80 PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and Improvements
81 PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Improvements
82 PE-12004 Municipal Services Center Facilities Study
83 PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop Space Improvements
84 PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker Room
85 PF-00006 Roofing Replacement
86 PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improvements
Streets and Sidewalks
89 PL-04010 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan - Implementation Project
90 PL-11002 California Avenue - Transit Hub Corridor Project
91 PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
92 PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs
93 PL-00026 Safe Routes to School
94 PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs
95 PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade
96 PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements
97 PE-86070 Street Maintenance
98 PE-06011 Street Median Improvements
99 PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and Striping
100 PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades
101 PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements
102 PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck Replacement
Parks and Open Space
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxv
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
105 PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping
106 PE-06010 City Parks Improvements
107 PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements
108 OS-07000 Foothills Park Road Improvements
109 PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program
110 PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and Road
111 PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance
112 PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements (formerly PE-07001)
113 PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation and Security Improvements
114 PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground
115 OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair
116 OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and Ponds Maintenance
117 OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities
118 PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs
119 PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation
120 PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field
121 PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improvements
122 PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design
123 PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements
124 PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements (formerly PE-11004)
125 PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Netting
126 PE-14000 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf Replacement
127 PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing
128 PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave. Irrigation Alternatives
129 PE-10002 Ventura Community Center and Park
Miscellaneous
133 FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement
134 AC-86017 Art in Public Places
135 LB-11000 Furniture and Technology for Library Measure N Projects
136 AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects
ENTERPRISE FUND PROJECTS
139 Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital Improvement Program
Electric Fund
147 Electric Map
149 EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12 kV Conversion
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxvi
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
150 EL-89031 Communications System Improvements
151 EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV Tie
152 EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections
153 EL-98003 Electric System Improvements
154 EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS
155 EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement
156 EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12 kV Conversion
157 EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area
158 EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12
159 EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15
160 EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16
161 EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20
162 EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmission System
164 EL-13002 Relocate Quarry Road/Hopkins Substations 60 kV Line (Lane A & B)
165 EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades
166 EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion
167 EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation
168 EL-11002 St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conversion
169 EL-10009 Street Light System Conversion Project
170 EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements
171 EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements
172 EL-08001 UG District 42 - Embarcadero Rd. (Between Emerson & Middlefield)
173 EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero
174 EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real
175 EL-11010 UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue
Fiber Optics Fund
179 FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections
180 FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network System Improvements
Gas Fund
183 Gas Map
185 GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipment
186 GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine
187 GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators
188 GS-80017 Gas System Extensions
189 GS-11002 Gas System Improvements
190 GS-10001 GMR - Project 20
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxvii
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
191 GS-11000 GMR - Project 21
192 GS-12001 GMR - Project 22
193 GS-13001 GMR - Project 23
194 GS-16000 GMR Project 26
195 GS-14003 GMR-Project 24
196 GS-15000 GMR-Project 25
197 GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment
198 GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreimbursed
Water Fund
201 Water Map
203 WS-09000 Seismic Water System Upgrades
204 WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data
206 WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improvements
207 WS-80015 Water Meters
208 WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities
209 WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements
210 WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement
211 WS-80013 Water System Extensions
212 WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements
213 WS-11000 WMR - Project 25
214 WS-12001 WMR - Project 26
216 WS-13001 WMR - Project 27
217 WS-14001 WMR - Project 28
219 WS-15002 WMR - Project 29
221 WS-16001 WMR - Project 30
Wastewater Collection Fund
225 Wastewater Collection Map
227 WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement
228 WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions
229 WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements
230 WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 25
232 WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 26
234 WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 24
236 WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 27
237 WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 28
239 WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 29
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxviii
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
240 WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting Machine
Refuse Fund
243 RF-11001 Landfill Closure
Wastewater Treatment Fund
247 WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit
248 WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replacement
Storm Drainage Fund
251 Storm Drain Map
253 SD-11101 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
254 SD-06104 Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station
255 SD-13002 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Lines Improvements
256 SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements
257 SD-06101 Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation
OTHER FUND PROJECTS
261 Other Funds Overview - Capital Improvement Program
Vehicle Replacement Fund
265 VR-16000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
266 VR-15000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
267 VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
268 VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
Technology Fund
271 TE-99010 Acquisition of New Computers
272 TE-11005 Implementation of New Utility Rate Structures
273 TE-11001 Library Computer System Software
274 TE-06001 Library RFID Implementation
275 TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement
277 TE-00010 Telephone System Replacement
278 TE-11004 Utilities Customer Bill Redesign
279 TE-10001 Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements
Supplemental Information
283 General Fund Infrastructure Backlog Summary
284 Infrastructure Future Needs - Backlog
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxix
Table of Contents
PAGE ITEM DESCRIPTION
INDEX
289 Index by Project Number
293 Glossary
296 Americans with Disabilities Act
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxx
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto xxxi
OVERVIEWS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012xxxii
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
he budget is a spending management plan for the City's financial resources. Through the use
of these resources, services are provided to meet the needs and desires of Palo Alto's residents
and businesses. The budget is also at the heart of the political process by which resources are
allocated based on City Council priorities. The review of the proposed budget is structured
around public hearings by the Finance Committee, which further incorporate public opinion into the
process. The budget is therefore the vehicle for responding to the community's wishes, as well as an
instrument for balancing inflows and outflows (revenues and expenditures) of funds.
CITY COUNCIL TOP 5 PRIORITIES
At the start of the City's budget process, the City Council determines its main priorities for the
following budget period. Through an open Council dialogue, the priorities guide both budget
development and department priority-setting. The public has the opportunity to provide input into
this process as well as during the budget review by the Finance Committee. The following are the Top
5 City Council priorities for Fiscal Year 2012:
City Finances
Land Use and Transportation Planning
Emergency Preparedness
Environmental Sustainability
Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being
BUDGET PREPARATION
The City's annual budget process begins in November and concludes in June. The operating and
capital budgets are developed by the City Manager, in consultation with senior management and the
Director of Administrative Services, utilizing five main sources of information:
• Community input
• City Council Top 5 Priorities
• Findings from the City's Long Range Financial Forecast which is updated annually and presented
to the Finance Committee prior to the budget process
• Service level prioritization
• Comprehensive Plan which contains the City's official policies on land use and community design,
transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services
This information provides the basis for the development of the budget guidelines. The budget
guidelines set the framework within which the City departments develop their budget plans.
T
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 20122
CAPITAL BUDGET CALENDAR
NOVEMBER:
Capital budget begins with the preparation of the capital budget guidelines and calendar by the
Administrative Services Department - Budget Division. The budget guidelines are then distributed to all the
departments.
DECEMBER:
Departments and committees review the prior year five-year capital plan. The General Fund CIP Committee
reviews the General Fund capital budget. The capital budgets for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds
are developed by the respective departments managing those operations: Utilities, Public Works, and
Administrative Services. Changes to the CIP Plan might include: addition of new projects, deletion of planned
projects, reprioritization of planned projects, and revision of project costs or timelines. Changes to the
previous five-year plan are driven by the budget guidelines and the project needs as interpreted by the
managing departments.
JANUARY:
Changes to the previous five-year plan are sent to the Budget Division and are then incorporated into the
Proposed Plan.
FEBRUARY:
Staff reviews the plan for compliance of the proposed CIP project with the budget guidelines and for any other
CIP budget issues that may have emerged during the process. The Proposed Plan is presented by Budget
Division staff to the Administrative Services Director. Changes initiated by the Director are communicated
and discussed with the originating department. Any changes that result as part of this review process are
incorporated into the Proposed Plan.
MARCH:
The City Manager reviews and makes the final decision on the Proposed Plan. Changes initiated by the City
Manager are incorporated into the Proposed Plan.
Staff solicits input from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on the Proposed Plan.
Comments from the PTC and staff response to PTC’s comments are reported to the Finance Committee
during the public budget hearing.
APRIL:
The Proposed Plan document is compiled and edited. A new draft is printed and transmitted to the Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC) for a second review. PTC reviews the Proposed Plan as it relates to the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 3
MAY/JUNE:
The City Manager formally presents the Proposed Plan to the City Council and subsequently to the Finance
Committee which conducts a series of public hearings. The Finance Committee presents its recommendation
to the City Council. Final adoption occurs at a public hearing in June. All changes made during the public
process are incorporated into the adopted budget document, which is distributed to City libraries as well as
posted on the City's website.
CAPITAL PROJECT CRITERIA
The following are criteria for qualification as a capital project:
• Must have a minimum cost of $50,000 for each stand-alone unit or combined project
• 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)
• Must extend the life of an existing asset or provide a new functional use for an existing asset for at least five
years. Examples include an extensive roof rehabilitation and a build out to accommodate new workers.
These improvements are distinguished from ongoing maintenance work that may extend the life of the
asset but is done on a routine basis, and from minor remodeling such as replacement of furniture or
partitions
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SELECTION CRITERIA
Since the budget process is an allocation of limited resources, capital projects are selected based on
prioritization criteria established by the City's capital budget guidelines. Each project submission is evaluated
based on the following eight criteria:
• Involves a mission-critical need that, if not addressed, would impede operational effectiveness
• Mitigates existing health and safety risks as identified by Public Works, Fire or Building Division
inspectors, or prevents potential future health and safety risks
• Is the result of specific Council direction
• Is legally required for compliance with codes or laws
• Has leverage funding through private/public partnership, government grants, development impact fees,
special revenues or enterprise funds
• Impacts the sustainability of the community - the ability of the community to meets its current needs
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
• Meets community priorities or serves a Council-identified need of a segment of the community such as
youth or seniors
• Has revenue generating potential that may cover the cost of the project
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 20124
A General Fund (GF) CIP Committee (composed of City staff from the Public Works, Community Services,
Planning and Community Environment and Administrative Services Departments) reviews all GF CIP
projects submitted by City departments. The projects are ranked using a prioritization matrix. Each project is
evaluated and assigned a value point for each prioritization criteria indicated above. All the scores are
summed, and projects are ranked according to the total score received.
Once the ranking of projects has been established, another round of review begins. This time, the projects are
reviewed again by the Committee with input from the City Manager and various stakeholders (e.g. Planning
and Transportation Committee). The ranking of the projects may be rearranged according to the input
received and funding availability.
The prioritization of Enterprise Fund CIP projects are established by the department that manages the
enterprise fund. Often the prioritization of CIP projects is dictated either by the department's operational
needs, CIP strategic plan, oversight committee and/or specific Council direction.
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT
The City uses the life-cycle costing principle in planning for capital projects. All costs associated with a capital
project including operations and maintenance are included in the operating budget. Where applicable, the
CIP budget document identifies the amount of operating expense associated with the project.
CHANGES TO THE ADOPTED BUDGET
Administrative policies provide guidelines on budget transfers, the authorization necessary to implement
transfers, and appropriations after the budget is adopted. Generally there are two types of budget transfers:
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Budgetary control, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount, is
exercised at the project level.
BUDGET AMENDMENT
This is an adjustment to the total project appropriated amount, which was not included in the original
adopted budget. These supplemental appropriations are presented to City Council in an agenda report and
must be approved by a two-thirds City Council vote. Unexpended appropriations at the end of the fiscal year
are automatically carried over to the following year for open projects.
Reasons for initiating a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) include:
• Recognizing unanticipated revenue, which was not projected in the budget, and appropriating related
expenditure in the year received
• Appropriating additional funds from reserves
• Transferring dollars from the operating budget to the capital budget
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 5
• Transferring funds between projects
BUDGETARY BASIS
The budget is prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The City's
Governmental Fund (General Fund, Special Revenue Fund and Capital Project Fund) and Proprietary Fund
Budgets (Enterprise Fund and Internal Service Fund) are developed using a modified accrual basis of
accounting. Modified accrual basis of accounting recognizes revenues when measurable and available and
records expenses when incurred. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and
“available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough afterwards to pay liabilities of the
current period.
FUND STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTING BASIS
The accounts of the City are made up of funds that help organize and account for restricted resources. A fund
is defined as a fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts (comprised of assets,
liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures), which are segregated for the purpose of carrying out
specific activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with regulatory requirements.
The City has the following fund type categories:
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
The governmental funds include the General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Project Funds.
Governmental Funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified
accrual basis of accounting.
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
The proprietary funds, which include the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds, are used to account for the
City's business-type activities. Proprietary funds are reported using the economic resources measurement
focus and the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned, and expenses are recorded
at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place.
FIDUCIARY FUND TYPES
The Fiduciary Funds account for assets held by the City in trust or as an agent for various assessment and
community facilities districts. The City budget process does not include fiduciary funds.
AGENCY FUND TYPES
The Agency Funds are custodial in nature and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City
maintains three agency funds. The City budget process does not include agency funds.
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 20126
DOCUMENT LAYOUT
The Capital Budget document provides readers with cost estimates, methods of financing, and recommended
project schedules for the City of Palo Alto's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the next five years.
Accordingly, the document includes descriptions, justifications, status, costs, managing departments, and
other relevant facts for the City of Palo Alto's CIP projects for FY 2012 through FY 2016.
Projects are presented within this volume under the following categories:
GENERAL FUND
• Buildings and Facilities
• Parks and Open Space
• Streets and Sidewalks
• Miscellaneous
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
• Electric Fund
• Fiber Optics Fund
• Gas Fund
• Water Fund
• Wastewater Collection Fund
• Wastewater Treatment Fund
• Refuse Fund
• Storm Drainage Fund
OTHER FUNDS- INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
• Vehicle Replacement Fund
• Technology Fund
In addition to project descriptions, this volume includes detailed financial summaries for capital expense by
fund. These summaries indicate the total cost of all projects for a particular fund by category and the source
and amount of reimbursement revenues for each project over the next five years. Two additional financial
summaries, contained within the General Fund section, provide a greater level of detail. The table titled
“2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects Summary by Fund” is a high-level view of each fund's capital expense
net of reimbursements over the next five years. The table titled “Capital Improvement Fund Financial
Summary” lists in detail the sources of funding for General Fund capital projects.
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 7
A list of prior year CIP projects is also included for quick reference. This list document is titled “FY 2011
Adopted CIP Projects” and is located after the financial summary tables.
Maps are also included within the general fund infrastructure management plan and utility fund sections,
which show where various infrastructure management plan projects, undergrounding, system rebuild, gas
and water main replacement projects will occur over the next five years. Finally, a glossary of terms at the end
of the volume defines frequently used terms.
UNDERSTANDING THE DETAILS
PROJECT NUMBERING SEQUENCE
The project number comprises seven characters. The
first two are letters related to the managing department
or fund. The next two digits relate to the fiscal year in
which the project first received funding. The final three
numbers are system-generated. For example, with
project PE-09006, the “PE” denotes Public Works
Engineering, the “09” indicates Fiscal Year 2009
funding, and the “006” is the sequential project
number. The Managing Department or Fund table to
the left can be used as a reference for the two-character
alpha portion of the project number.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The project description pages include the following
information:
• “New” or “Continuing” project category noted above
the title or inside the CIP facts box
• Project Description and Justification sections -
provide the scope of work and justification for the
project
• Supplemental Information - provides additional
information that may enhance the project
description and justification. Supplemental
information is provided for select projects when needed
• CIP Facts - provides key facts in an easy-to-locate box at the top of the page. Contains information on
current project status, timeline, overall project completion, percent spent, managing department, and
Comprehensive Plan references. It also contains information on impact analysis
• Overall Project Completion - percentage completed based on an estimate by project manager
Project
Code Managing Department or Fund
AC Arts and Culture
AS Adminsistrative Services
EL Electric Fund
FO Fiber Optics Fund
GS Gas Fund
LI Library
OS Open Space
PD Police Department
PE Public Works Engineering
PF Public Works Facilities
PG Parks and Golf Course
PL Planning
PO Public Works Operations
RF Refuse Fund
SD Storm Drain Fund
TE Technology Fund
WQ Wastewater Treatment Fund
GS Gas Fund
WS Water Fund
WC Wastewater Collection Fund
The Capital Budget Process and
Document
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 20128
• Percent Spent - financial measure of the total amount spent. It is the ratio of actual cumulative expenses
from the inception of the project through December 31, 2010, compared to the total project budget
• Future Financial Requirements - the estimated expense of the project in future years. Costs are separated
into pre-design, design, construction and “other” costs. Future project costs are estimated based on a
combination of historical data on similar projects, assumptions about future inflationary factors, and
professional judgments deemed appropriate. An inflationary factor ranging from 5 percent to 10 percent
may be applied to a project
• PY Budget - indicates the cumulative prior year budget amounts for the project
• PY Actuals - indicates the cumulative actual expense through December 31, 2010
• Sources of Funding - indicates fund(s) or external revenue source(s) that will be financing the project
• Impact Analysis and Support - states the impact the project will have in any of four categories:
- Environmental: describes visual or aesthetic impact on the environment, a description of that impact, and
any efforts to mitigate it
- Design Elements: describes design elements that will improve the visual or aesthetic elements of the project
- Operating: describes estimates of the annual maintenance and operating costs associated with the project.
Maintenance costs include: utilities, equipment maintenance or service, facilities maintenance or service,
grounds/ landscape maintenance or service, custodial maintenance and others. Operating costs include,: new
program salaries and benefits, program supplies/materials costs, and other costs
- Telecommunications: describes estimated annual project costs for telecommunications equipment needed
to implement the project
• Comprehensive Plan section - indicates how the project furthers the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, citing specific Comprehensive Plan policies and programs
• Managing Department - identifies the department that has responsibility for the project
• Board/Commission Review - City Council-appointed advisory board, commission or ad hoc committee
that has oversight responsibility on a project. A project may be reviewed by more than one board or
commission due to differing scope of authority assigned by the City Council. This body (bodies) provides
the City Council input as to the merits of a project. The acronyms for each of these bodies are:
PTC: Planning and Transportation Commission
UAC: Utilities Advisory Commission
SDOC: Storm Drain Oversight Committee
HRB: Historic Resource Board
ARB: Architectural Review Board
PRC: Parks & Recreation Commission
PAC: Public Arts Commission
LAC: Library Advisory Commission
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 9
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
he City's “2011-21 Long Range Financial Forecast” (LRFF) was presented to the City
Council Finance Committee in February 2011 (CMR: 1315). The LRFF identified key issues
that will guide the upcoming Fiscal Year 2012 budget process and affect the City's future
financial condition. It is a tool for Council's use in making policy decisions regarding the
allocation of resources. The LRFF, with its ten-year revenue and expense forecast, is the foundation
upon which this budget is constructed.
A complete copy of the LRFF is available at the City’s web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/
filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=26542
An excerpt of the state and local economic outlook as of January 2011 is provided below.
STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The Great Recession was declared officially over as of June 2009 by the National Bureau of
Economic Research; yet there remain 15 million unemployed American workers, the housing market
shows underwhelming evidence of a rebound, and the general recovery is painfully slow. Moreover,
there is an unprecedented disconnect between rising corporate profits and the rate of job creation.
U.S. unemployment remained in the 9.6% range for the third quarter of 2010, jumping to 9.8% in
November, before dropping to 9.4% in December. Moreover, the unemployment statistics are part of
a broader problem of the underemployed and long-term unemployed. The U.S. Department of Labor
uses a measure known as U-6 to quantify both the unemployed and others working part-time who
want full-time work but cannot find it. The Department's November Job report showed the U-6 rate
increased to 17.1% in September from 16.7% in August, and decreased slightly to 17.0% in October
and November, then to 16.7% in December. That 16.7% underemployment rate translates into 14.8
million Americans unemployed, and another 7 million underemployed, to total about 22 million
Americans who want full-time work but cannot find it. Furthermore, 6 million people have been
unemployed for longer than 6 months. Many of these people will face challenges reintegrating into
the industries from which they came.
T
Source: Gallup
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201210
The housing market is showing tepid recovery, with large variations by region and area. Pending sales of U.S.
existing houses unexpectedly jumped by a record 10 percent in October, following a 1.8 percent drop in
September. Many took this as a sign that the housing industry was in recovery, yet the October 2010 figures
were 22 percent below pending sales of October 2009.
In California, home prices have largely stabilized in the $250,000 range, after declining some 57% from the
peak to the trough of the housing market.
In Santa Clara County, a 13-month trend of year-over-year home price increases was reversed in November
by a sharp 7.3 percent drop in the median price to $510,000, as reported by DataQuick, a real estate
information service. In San Mateo County, the median price dropped 3.7 percent or $617,500 from a year
ago, and sales dipped 2.7 percent. However, sales in the high end were strong in San Mateo County. One
DataQuick analyst observed, “It all varies at the neighborhood level, and the bigger picture is that home
prices are essentially flat across the board.”
“California's recession started even earlier than the nation's and was deeper. While U.S. employment dropped
about 5 percent since 2007, employment in CA declined 9 percent (1.4 million jobs). Unemployment in the
state - under 5 percent as recently as 2006 - has topped 12 percent for over a year now, with only 53,000 jobs
recovered out of the 1.4 million lost. In 2009, personal income in California actually dropped 2.4 percent -
the first annual decline since 1933. ….” As recently as August, the state's unemployment rate rose by 0.1% to
12.4 percent after declining or holding steady for the last 4 months.
The main cause of the state's economic implosion has been the housing market, and for now the collapse of
the state's residential housing sector appears to have ended, but growth is expected to be very weak.
Moreover the state's construction sector - having endured a crushing 40 percent employment decline since
2007-is not on track to regain its pre-recession strength in the foreseeable future.
Nationally, consumers are spending more, but month-to-month results vary. The Conference Board
Consumer Confidence Index, which had improved in November, decreased slightly in December. The Index
now stands at 52.5 (1985=100), down from 54.3 in November. This index is based on a survey of 5,000 US
households.
Consumers' holiday spending was improved compared to last year, but not as much as analysts had hoped,
based on positive November data. October retail levels had climbed by the most in seven months, with
purchases rising 1.2% over the previous month, and 7.3 percent above October 2009. This rise was led by a
5% gain among auto dealers, compared to September, and sales excluding automobiles advanced just 0.4%.
At the same time, American's personal income grew at a faster pace than it had for much of the year, and
consumer spending expanded.
As California's Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) describes it, “the slow recovery results from a
combination of (1) excess inventories of residential and commercial real estate, (2) severely depressed
economic confidence among both individuals and firms, and (3) for many consumers, a considerably
weakened financial capacity to spend and invest…. While businesses have been spending more in recent
quarters to address equipment, software, and other needs they deferred during the recession, they remain very
reluctant to hire.”
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 11
In the last month or so, some businesses have noticed a pick-up in the job market. An executive from
Sterling Infosystems, a firm that helps companies screen employees, said, “A year ago this time most people
were holding on to jobs, and very few people were quitting. Now you've got churn. People are leaving and
being replaced. That's what gets things going again.”
Furthermore, since its trough in June 2009, the Federal Reserve's index of industrial production is up almost
10%. Part of this is due to strong demand from abroad as the rest of the world recovers from the global
downturn.
PROJECTIONS
The U.S. can expect “very sluggish growth” for the foreseeable future. Beacon Economics, a California-
based economic research and analysis firm, projected in early November that the national unemployment rate
would stay above 8 percent until the 3rd quarter of 2012. The State Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) was
even more pessimistic, predicting that unemployment would remain above 9 percent throughout 2012; Most
pessimistic of all, a New York Times article January 9 predicted that “at the current rate, the economy will
need 72 to 90 months [- that is, at least six years -] to recapture the jobs lost during the Great Recession. And
that does not account for the five million jobs needed to keep pace with a growing population.”
In California, Beacon forecasted an unemployment rate above 12 percent through 2nd quarter 2011, dipping
to 10% in late 2012, and that “it will be well into 2015 before California reaches its pre-recession peak of
15.2 million jobs.” In Silicon Valley, while the overall regional economy is improving, hiring has not picked
up significantly.
The Bay Area Council released its fall Business Confidence Survey in December, and the results show that
Bay Area CEO's and executives are feeling more positive about the Bay Area economy, however, they expect
the current status quo of slow growth and recovery to continue. The business confidence index - the number
that distills the survey findings - registered at 58 out of 100, up 2 points from the last survey, but still down 4
points from May. A reading over 50 signals positive economic times, while below 50 is negative. In January
2009, the index reached its all-time low of 31.
The Survey also indicated that a majority of executives, 56%, expect their workforces to remain the same
over the next 6 months, while 27% of executives stated they planned to increase their workforce. 50% of
Bay Area companies with over 10,000 employees expect to increase their workforce over the next six
months, an increase of 41 points since last quarter's survey.
With unemployment at the relatively low rate of 5.8% in November 2010, Palo Alto has been spared the
higher unemployment rates experienced by the rest of Santa Clara County, which remained at 10.8% in
November. Yet Palo Alto's unemployment rate was more than double its 2007 pre-recession rate of 2.5%.
Unemployment Rates Nov
2007
Nov
2008
Nov
2009
Nov
2010
Santa Clara County 4.7% 7.0% 11.5% 10.8%
City of Palo Alto 2.5% 3.7% 6.2% 5.8%
Source: California Employment Development Department
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201212
CIP FUNDING SOURCES
The 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan derives its funding from a variety of sources. The
table on the following page provides a listing of those sources along with a comparison with the 2011-2015
CIP Plan.
Revenue Source ($000's)
Fiscal
Year
2012
Fiscal
Year
2013
Fiscal
Year
2014
Fiscal
Year
2015
Fiscal
Year
2016
Total 2012-
2016 CIP
Plan
(Proposed)
Total 2011-
2015 CIP
Plan
Difference
Infrastructure Reserve $10,145 $11,032 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $54,000 $56,132 ($2,132)
Transfer from General Fund $1,634 $1,681 $1,730 $1,763 $1,814 $8,622 $8,089 $533
Gas Tax $2,150 $1,650 $1,625 $1,625 $1,625 $8,675 $4,150 $4,525
General Obligation Bonds $16,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,150 $18,300 ($2,150)
Development Impact Fees $47 $220 $0 $220 $0 $487 $440 $47
Other Agencies $5,829 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $7,429 $1,210 $6,219
Transfer from Enterprise Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $260 ($260)
Total $35,955 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $95,363 $88,581 $6,782
Utility Rate Charges $22,037 $28,642 $28,260 $29,861 $28,767 $137,567 $144,680 ($7,113)
Fees and Charges $4,045 $3,829 $4,194 $4,321 $3,714 $20,103 $18,762 $1,341
Storm Drainage Fee $2,162 $2,270 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $11,809 $10,746 $1,063
Transfers between Enterprise $67 $1,400 $2,067 $2,067 $2,000 $7,601 $8,108 ($507)
Water Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 ($3,500)
Cash Accumulated To Pay For the
Landfill Closure and Post-Closure
Care Liability
$6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100 $6,700 ($600)
Partner Agencies $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950 $13,100 ($4,150)
Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 $0 $8,000
Total $34,411 $37,341 $39,373 $41,315 $47,690 $200,130 $205,596 ($5,466)
Fund Balance $1,530 $1,686 $2,321 $3,393 $3,013 $11,943 $16,125 ($4,182)
Transfer from Enterprise Funds $951 $270 $270 $270 $270 $2,031 $4,529 ($2,498)
Stanford University $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $80 264 ($184)
Total $2,497 $1,972 $2,607 $3,679 $3,299 $14,054 $20,918 ($6,864)
Grand Total $72,863 $55,496 $57,732 $59,620 $63,836 $309,547 $315,095 ($5,548)
Capital Fund
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 13
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE
The Infrastructure Reserve (IR) was originally created as a mechanism to accumulate funding required to
complete a 10 year, $100 million infrastructure rehabilitation program (IMP) that would repair or renovate
existing buildings and facilities, streets and sidewalks, parks and open space, and transportation systems.
From time to time, the Council has used the IR to fund new capital projects. However, the Council has not
changed the original policy of prioritizing the care and maintenance of existing infrastructure over the
acquisition of new infrastructure, as adopted when the Infrastructure Management Plan was approved.
The need to maintain infrastructure on a systematic basis requires the IR to be continually funded to act in
perpetuity as the source of funding for General Fund infrastructure. The IR is funded by a base transfer from
the General Fund of $8.6 million a year. The transfer is adjusted by a consumer price index each year.
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
In addition to the $8.6 million annual commitment of the General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve, the
General Fund also provides funding for specific projects. Most of these projects recur annually. These
projects include: Art in Public Places (AC-86017), Street Light Improvements (PO-05054), Traffic Signal
Upgrades (PL-05030) and salary and benefits costs of city staff assigned to manage the capital projects. The
total transfer (which includes the base transfer of $8.6 million) from the General Fund to the Infrastructure
Reserve for Fiscal Year 2012 is $10.5 million.
TRANSFER FROM ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The City of Palo Alto has eight Enterprise Funds, and each fund is a separate fiscal entity. Each Enterprise
Fund shares the cost of the General Fund CIP project, if the project contributes to the Enterprise Fund's
operations. In the 2012-2016 CIP Plan, there are no CIP projects identified that require funding from the
Enterprise Funds.
GAS TAX FUND
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for revenues received from the State gas tax and Federal and State grants
earmarked for street improvements. Use of this fund is restricted to maintenance of the road network system
of the City. Gas tax supports CIP Project Street Maintenance (PE-86070), Bicycle Boulevard
Implementation (PL-04010), and Transportation and Parking Improvements (PL-12000). An operating
transfer from the Gas Tax Fund to the Capital Fund reimburses the cost of these projects.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
On November 4, 2008, residents of the City of Palo Alto approved Measure N, an initiative to issue $76
million of General Obligation bonds to provide funds over the next decade to rebuild the Mitchell Park
Library and adjacent Community Center (PE-09006), renovate and expand the Main Library (PE-11000), and
renovate the Downtown branch (PE-09005). In June 2010, the City successfully sold the first of two series of
General Obligation bonds, providing $58.5 million in construction funds for the library and community
center projects. The City plans to issue a second series of bonds in 2012 to complete the Measure N financing
effort.
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201214
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Development impact fees are collected from new development and provide funding for the City's
infrastructure related to parks, community centers, and libraries. The City Attorney provides guidance on
whether a project qualifies for funding. The Capital project supported by development impact fees in the
2012-2016 CIP Plan is Park Restroom Installations project (PE-06007).
STREET CUT FEES
Street cut fees are collected from entities that excavate the City's right-of-way. Excavations in paved streets
owned and maintained by the City degrade and shorten the life of the streets. This degradation increases the
frequency and the cost necessary for the resurfacing, maintenance, and repair of the streets. Street cut fees
collected are designated for the Street Maintenance Project (PE-86070). These fees are collected in the
General Fund and are transferred to the Capital Project Fund as part of the annual transfer to the
Infrastructure Reserve.
OTHER AGENCIES
The City partners with local agencies to provide support to certain capital projects. In Fiscal Year 2012, the
City will receive a total of $5.8 million from three agencies: $1.7 million from the Valley Transit Authority
(VTA) for the support of the Safe Route To School Project (PL-00026) and the California Avenue Transit
Hub Corridor Project (PL-11002); $3.1 million from the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL) for the
purchase of new furniture, equipment and technology for the Measure N bond projects at the new Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center (PE-09006), the expanded and renovated Main Library (PE-11000) and
renovated Downtown Library (PE-09005); $1.0 million from the Friends of the Magical Bridge for the
building of a new 18,000-sq ft playground on an undeveloped eastern corner of Mitchell Park.
In Fiscal Year 2011, the City received a grant of $1.2 million from VTA Streetscape Community Design and
Transportation for the El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Streetscape and Intersection Improvements (PL-
07002).
ENTERPRISE FUNDS UTILITY RATE CHARGES
Enterprise Funds operate on a full cost recovery basis. Accordingly, all costs related to operations and capital
projects are recovered through the customers. Utility rate charges are received by the utility funds as revenue.
USER FEES AND CHARGES
Certain CIP projects in the Enterprise Funds are supported by user fees. Included in this category are certain
charges to telecommunication companies pertaining to undergrounding projects. For the 2012-2016 CIP
Plan, four undergrounding projects are planned, and the estimated reimbursements from Telecommunication
companies during this period are $2.6 million.
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 15
The list of projects funded by user fees and the description of each user fee are summarized in the table
below:
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
In April 2005, property owners approved an increase of $10 per month (for a typical single-family residential
ratepayer) in the Storm Drainage Fee through a mail ballot process conducted in accordance with Proposition
218. The ballot measure allowed for modest Storm Drainage Fee increases, based on an annual local
consumer price index (CPI) or 6 percent, whichever is less. In Fiscal Year 2012, a fee increase was proposed
based on a 1.5 percent CPI. The increased revenue from the higher fee will fund a set of high-priority storm
drain CIP projects.
The fee increase will “sunset” after 12 years (to end in FY 2017) unless reauthorized by another property
owner ballot process. The City Council appointed the Storm Drain Oversight Committee to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the ballot measure.
Enterprise
Fund
Project Name User Fee 2012-2016 CIP
Plan Revenues
Description
Fiber Optics
Fund
Fiber Optic
Customer
Connections FO-
10000
Fiber Optic
License Fees
$1,000,000 Fiber optic license fees cover installation of fiber
optic infrastructure for new service connections.
For a list of other services refer to Utility Rate
Schedule EDF-1.
Electric Fund Electric Customer
Connections
(EL-89028)
Connection
Fees
$4,625,000 Connection fees cover services for installation,
transformers, meters for new customer,
upgrading of existing customers and temporary
service connection. For a list of other services
refer to Utility Rate Schedule E-15.
Gas Fund Gas System
Extensions (GS-
80017)
Connection
Fees
$3,702,000 Connection fees cover services for distribution
system extension, service connection, meter
charges and relocation. For a list of other services
refer to Utility Rate Schedule G-5.
Water Fund Water System
Extensions
(WS-80013)
Connection
Fees
$3,605,000 Connection fees cover services for distribution
system extension, service connection, meter
charges, capacity fees and fire hydrants. For a
list of other services refer to Utility Rate
Schedule W-5.
Wastewater
Collection
Fund
Sewer System
Extensions (WC-
80020)
Connection
Fees
$3,816,000 Connection fees cover services for collection
system extension, service connection, relocation
of facilities and manholes. For a list of other
services refer to Utility Rate Schedule S-5.
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201216
TRANSFERS WITHIN ENTERPRISE FUNDS
CIP projects that benefit multiple enterprise funds are funded by the beneficiary funds.
One project is the application of the Geographic Information System (GIS) (WS-02014) that benefit the
Water, Gas and Wastewater Collection Funds. The Water Fund hosts the GIS project, and the Gas and
Wastewater Collection Fund reimburse the Water Fund for their share of the project cost.
Another project is the Smart Grid Technology project (EL-11014) which will benefit the Electric, Gas and
Water Funds. The Electric Fund hosts the Smart Grid Technology project. The Gas and Water Funds
reimburse the Electric Fund for their share of the project cost.
WATER REVENUE BONDS
In FY 2010, the City issued water revenue bonds in the amount of $35 million to fund the Emergency Water
Supply project (WQ-08002). See the Debt Policy and Obligations section of this budget document for more
details of the Water Revenue Bonds.
CASH ACCUMULATED TO PAY FOR THE LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
CARE LIABILITY
State and Federal laws and regulations require that the City place a final cover on the remaining open areas of
the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Site when it discontinues accepting waste, and perform certain maintenance
and monitoring functions at the site after closure. At the end of each year, the estimated cost for the landfill
closure and post-closure care is recognized as a liability in the Refuse Fund's financial statements. The
Refuse Fund has accumulated cash to pay for this liability. The estimated cost to put a final closure on the
landfill open area is $6.7 million.
PARTNER AGENCIES
The Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos (the partners) participate jointly in the cost of
maintaining and operating the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The City of Palo Alto
is the owner and the administrator of the Plant. The other partner agencies (City of Mountain View and Los
Altos) reimburse the City for their share in the cost of CIP projects.
GRANTS
The Water Fund contains a proposed project that would expand the existing Recycled water delivery system
and provide another supply source to the Stanford Research area of the City (WS-07001). The success of this
project depends on the ability of the City to find a grant or other funding source.
Summary of Capital Improvement
Program Revenues
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 17
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
An Internal Service Fund (ISF) is a means of accumulating costs related to a given activity on an accrual
basis so that the costs can subsequently be allocated to the benefiting funds in the form of fees or charges.
Reimbursements from benefiting funds provide the funding source for these projects.
The Technology Fund has eight proposed CIP projects in FY 2012 in the total amount of $2.5 million. Other
Internal Service Funds, such as the Vehicle Replacement Fund, have no proposed CIP projects in FY 2012.
Replacement of vehicles and equipment are limited to urgently needed vehicles and equipment, and
replacements will be made on as needed-basis by Budget Amendment Ordinance.
REIMBURSEMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The General Fund and Enterprise Funds (comprising nine funds) provide funding for their share of CIP
Projects in the Internal Service Funds (ISF). ISFs ( Vehicle Replacement, Printing and Mailing, and
Technology Funds) allocate all CIP project costs to the appropriate funds, which then transfer to the ISFs the
allocated reimbursement amounts. These reimbursements are reflected as revenue on the ISFs financial
summary.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Stanford University pays a portion of the cost of certain CIP projects in the Technology Fund as part of the
agreement with Stanford University as the City provides public safety services, which include Fire and
communication.
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201218
Debt Policy and Obligations
he City of Palo Alto recognizes the need for spending a prudent amount every year for
ongoing capital replacement and rehabilitation needs. An ongoing capital improvement plan
is vital to ensuring the future viability of services. To achieve this priority, the City funds its
regular and ongoing capital needs primarily on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. There are, however,
special or extraordinary capital improvement projects in which it is appropriate to consider debt
financing. A set of guidelines is included below to support the decision-making process, and is not
intended to be used as a set of rigid rules for issuing debt.
DEBT POLICY GUIDELINES
It is appropriate to consider debt financing for capital improvements but not for operating budget
items. It is the City’s policy that annual debt service payments should not exceed 10 percent of the
annual expenditure budget of the General Fund. The term of the debt issuance should not exceed the
useful life expectancy of the asset acquired, constructed, or improved.
It is appropriate to consider debt financing under the following circumstances:
• The project financing can be paid for directly by the users of the facility. One example is capital
improvements made to the City's golf course, where debt service payments can be made from the
green fees paid by golfers. A second example is capital improvements paid for by assessments to
property owners, such as a parking assessment for a downtown parking garage
• For enterprise funded projects, a significant backlog of capital improvements has developed, and
that backlog cannot be addressed through the ongoing capital budget without having a significant
impact on utility rates
• Funding for a large project (or grouping of similar projects) would have a significant negative
impact on the availability of funding for other ongoing capital needs
• Capital leases may be considered for purchases of large pieces of equipment
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT
Based upon the assessed valuation of $21.9 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, the City is
limited to general obligation indebtedness of $0.8 billion. As of June 30, 2010, the amount of debt
applicable to the debt limit is $55.3 million. The City is nowhere near its legal debt limit.
T
Debt Policy and Obligations
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 19
DEBT OBLIGATIONS
Summaries of City of Palo Alto debt activity for Fiscal Year 2011 are provided in the following section.
DEBT OBLIGATION DESCRIPTIONS
1998 Golf Course Certificate of Participation (COPs): In August 1998, the City's Public Improvement Corporation
issued Golf Course Improvement COPs, Series 1998 in the amount of $7.75 million to retire the 1978 Golf
Course Lease Revenue Bonds, and to finance various improvements at the Palo Alto Public Golf Course,
including upgrading five fairways and various traps, trees and greens, constructing new storm drain facilities,
replacing the existing irrigation system, upgrading the driving range, and installing new cart paths. The 1998
COPs are secured by lease revenues received by the Public Improvement Corporation from golf course
revenues or other unrestricted revenues of the City. Principal and interest are payable semi-annually each
March 1 and September 1.
Original
Issue
Amount
Balance
June 30,
2010 Additions Retirements
Balance
June 30,
2011
Current
Portion
4.00-5.00%, due 09/01/2018 $7,750 $4,060 $370 $3,690 $385
2.00-4.00%, due 03/01/2012 3,500 795 390 405 405
4.55-6.00%, due 03/01/2022 3,555 1,910 110 1,800 115
2010A General Obligation Bonds
2.00-5.00%, due 08/01/2040 55,305 55,305 765 54,540 765
$70,110 $62,070 $0 $1,635 $60,435 $1,670
1995 Series A, 5.00-6.25%, due 06/01/2020 $8,640 $4,969 $375 $4,594 $395
1999 Refunding, 3.25-5.25%, due 06/01/2024 17,735 13,235 520 12,715 550
2002 Series A, 3.00-5.00%, due 06/01/2026 26,055 18,885 835 18,050 870
(1,312) (91) (1,221)
2009 Series A, 1.80 - 4.65%, due 06/02/2035 35,015 35,015 825 34,190 835
2007 Series A, 0%, due 12/15/2021 1,500 1,200 100 1,100 100
2007, 0%, due 6/30/2029 9,000 8,550 450 8,100 450
2009, 2.6%, due 11/30/2030 8,500 4,530 3,970 8,500 199
(1,425) (75) (1,350)
$106,445 $83,647 $3,970 $2,939 $84,678 $3,399
State Water Resources Loan
Less: unamortized discount/ issuance cost
Business-type Activity Debt:
Enterprise Long Term Obligations:
Utility Revenue Bonds,
Energy Tax Credit Bonds
Water Revenue Bonds
Less: unamortized discount/ issuance cost
Certificates of Participation
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements
Certificates of Participation
Total Governmental Activity Debt
Governmental Activity Debt:
General Long Term Obligations:
1998 Golf Course Certificates of Participation
2002A Civic Center Refinancing
Debt Policy and Obligations
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201220
2002A Civic Center Refinancing COPs: On January 16, 2002 the City issued $3.5 million of COPs to refund the
City's 1992 COPs which were subsequently retired. Principal payments for the 2002A COPs are due annually
on March 1, and interest payments semi-annually on March 1 and September 1, and are payable from lease
revenues received by the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation from the City from available funds.
2002B Downtown Parking Improvement Project COPs: On January 16, 2002 the City issued $3.6 million of COPs
to finance the construction of certain improvements to the non-parking area contained in the City's Bryant /
Florence Garage complex. Principal payments are due annually on March 1, and interest payments semi-
annually on March 1 and September 1 from 4.55 percent - 6.5 percent, and are payable from lease revenues
received by the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation from the City’s available funds.
On January 25, 2005, the City defeased $900 thousand of the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvements
Certificates of Participation. By placing surplus cash from the Civic Center Refinancing and Downtown
Parking Improvement Project Construction account into an irrevocable trust to provide for future debt
payments. Accordingly, the trust account assets and the liability for the defeased bonds are not included on
the financial statements. The outstanding amount of the defeased debt at June 30, 2010, was $700 thousand.
The defeasance resulted in an overall debt service savings of $1.5 million and an economic gain of $462
thousand.
2010 General Obligation Bonds: On June 30, 2010, the City issued $55.3 million of General Obligation (GO)
bonds to finance costs for constructing a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, as well as
substantial improvements to the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Principal payments are due
annually on August 1, and interest payments semi-annually on February 1 and August 1 from 2.0 percent to
5.0 percent, and are payable from property tax revenues.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above funds ends upon repayment of the $58.5 million in
remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in 2041. In FY 2010, there were no debt
service payments due.
1995 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A: The City issued Utility Revenue Bonds on February 1, 1995 to finance
certain extensions and improvements to the City's Storm Drainage and Surface Water System. The Bonds are
special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and lien upon the revenues
derived by the City from the funds, services and facilities of all Enterprise Funds except the Refuse Fund and
the Fiber Optics Fund. Principal payments are payable annually on June 1, and interest payments semi-
annually on June 1 and December 1. A $2.9 million 6.25 percent term bond is due June 1, 2020. In lieu of a
reserve fund, the Bonds are secured by a Surety Bond issued by AMBAC Indemnity Corporation.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above funds ends upon repayment of the $4.969 million in
remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in 2020. For fiscal year 2010, Net Revenues,
including operating revenues and non-operating interest earnings, amounted to $244.681 million, and
operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to
$190.782 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $53.899, million which represented
coverage of 79.15 times over the $681 thousand in debt service.
1999 Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series A: The City issued Utility Revenue Bonds on June 1, 1999 to
refund the 1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A,
Debt Policy and Obligations
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 21
and to finance rehabilitation of the Wastewater Treatment System's two sludge incinerators. The 1990 Utility
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A, were subsequently retired.
The 1999 Bonds are special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and lien
upon certain net revenues derived by the City's Sewer System and its storm and surface water system (the
“Storm Drain System”). As of June 30, 2001, the 1999 Bonds had been allocated to and were repayable from
net revenues of the following enterprise funds: Wastewater Collection (10.2 percent), Wastewater Treatment
(64.6 percent) and Storm Drain (25.2 percent). Principal payments are payable annually on June 1, and
interest payments semi-annually on June 1 and December 1. A $3.125 million 5.25 percent term bond, and a
$5.12 million 5.25 percent term bond are due June 1, 2021 and 2024, respectively. In lieu of a reserve fund, the
Bonds are secured by a Surety Bond issued by AMBAC Indemnity Corporation.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above funds ends upon repayment of the $13.235 million in
remaining debt service on the bonds which is scheduled to occur in 2024. For fiscal year 2010, Net Revenues,
including operating revenues and non-operating interest earnings, amounted to $39.214 million; operating
costs including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization and amounted to $27.378
million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $11.836 million, which represents coverage of
9.78 times over the $1.21 million in debt service.
2002 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A: On January 24, 2002 the City issued Utility Revenue Bonds to finance
certain improvements to the City's water and natural gas utility system. Principal payments are due annually
on June 1, and interest payments are due semi-annually on June 1 and December 1 from 3 percent to 5
percent. The 2002 Revenue Bonds are secured by net revenues generated by the Water Services and Gas
Services Funds.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above funds ends upon repayment of the $18.89 million in
remaining debt service on the bonds which is scheduled to occur in 2026. For fiscal year 2010, Net Revenues,
including operating revenues and non-operating interest earnings, amounted to $74.224 million; operating
costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to $55.988
million. Net Revenue available for debt service amounted to $18.236 million, which represented coverage of
10.57 times over the $1.725 million in debt service.
2007 Electric System Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds. On November 1, 2007 the City issued $1.5
million of Electric Utility Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds (CREBS), 2007 Series A, to finance the
City’s photovoltaic solar panel project. The bonds do not bear interest. In lieu of receiving periodic interest
payments, bondholders are allowed federal income tax credit in an amount equal to a credit rate for such
CREBS multiplied by the outstanding principal amount of the CREBS owned by the bondholders. The Bonds
are payable solely from and secured solely by a pledge of the Net Revenues of the Electric system and other
funds pledged therefore under the Indenture.
The pledge of future Electric Fund Net Revenues ends upon repayment of the $1.2 million in remaining debt
service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in 2021. For FY 2010, Net Revenues, including operating
revenues and non-operating interest earnings, amounted to $127.651 million; operating costs, including
operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to $106.211 million. Net
Revenues available for debt service amounted to $21.44 million, which represented coverage of 214.4 times
over the $0.1 million in debt service.
Debt Policy and Obligations
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201222
2009 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A: On October 6, 2009, the City issued Water Revenue Bonds to finance
certain improvements to the City’s water utility system. Principal payments are due annually on June 1, and
interest payments are due semi-annually on June 1 and December 1, from 1.80 percent to 5.95 percent. The
2009 were issued as bonds designated as "Direct Payment Build America Bonds" under the provisions of the
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Build America Bonds"). The City expects to
receive a cash subsidy payment from the United States Treasury equal to 35 percent of the interest payable on
the 2009 bonds. The lien on the 1995 Bonds on the Net Revenues is senior to the lien on Net Revenues
securing the 2009 Bonds and the 2002 Bonds. The City received the first cash subsidy payments amounting to
$360,797, which is 35 percent of the first interest payment due on June 1, 2010.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above fund ends upon repayment of the $35 million in remaining
debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in 2035. For FY 2010, Net Revenues, including
operating revenues and non-operating interest earnings amounted to $28 million; operating costs, including
operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to $19.4 million. Net Revenues
available for debt service amounted to $8.6 million, which represented coverage of 8.33 times over the
$1million in debt service.
2007 State Water Resources Loan : In October 2007, the City approved the $9.0 million loan agreement with
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to finance the City's Mountain View/Moffett Area reclaimed
water pipeline project. Under the terms of the contract, the City agreed to repay $9.0 million to the State in
exchange for receiving $7.5 million in proceeds to be used to fund the Project. The difference between the
repayment obligation and proceeds amounts to $1.5 million and represents in-substance interest on the
outstanding balance. Loan proceeds are drawn down as the project progresses and debt service payments
commence on June 30, 2010. Concurrently with the loan, the City entered into various other agreements
including a cost sharing arrangement with the City of Mountain View. Pursuant to that agreement, City of
Mountain View agreed to finance a portion of the project with a $5 million loan repayable to the City. This
loan has been recorded as "Due from other government agencies" in the financial statements.
2009 State Water Resources Loan: In October 2009, the City approved an $8.5 million loan agreement with the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to finance the City’s Ultraviolet Disinfection project. Loan
proceeds are drawn down as the project progresses and annual debt service payments commence on
November 30, 2010.
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 23
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201224
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 25
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
CAPITAL FUND $35,955 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $95,363
Total Reimbursements (25,762) (5,151) (3,355) (3,608) (3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $10,194 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $54,048
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Total Reimbursements 00000 $0
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,497 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,412
Total Reimbursements (967) (286) (286) (286) (286)$(2,111)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
Total Reimbursements (1,695) (2,783) (3,785) (3,870) (3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
Total Reimbursements (200) (200) (200) (200) (200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
Total Reimbursements (710) (720) (730) (752) (790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
WATER FUND $4,869 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $58,356
Total Reimbursements (767) (776) (785) (795) (8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $4,102 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $46,483
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201226
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
Total Reimbursements (740) (750) (761) (771) (794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Total Reimbursements 00000 $0
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Total Reimbursements 00000 $0
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,162 $2,270 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $11,809
Total Reimbursements 00000 $0
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,162 $2,270 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $11,809
TOTAL CIP COSTS (ALL FUNDS)$72,863 $55,495 $57,732 $59,620 $63,836 $309,546
Total Reimbursements (30,840) (10,666) (9,902) (10,282) (17,438)$(79,129)
NET CIP COSTS $42,022 $44,829 $47,830 $49,338 $46,397 $230,417
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 27
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Bond Proceeds 59,071 1,400 2,303 16,150 13,847
Other Agencies 78 1,210 1,210 5,828 4,618
State of California 585 0 164 0 (164)
Federal Grants 1,033 0 1,099 0 (1,099)
Stanford University 27 0 0 00
Investment Income 1,002 1,035 1,035 1,075 40
Other Revenue 532 0 275 0 (275)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $62,329 $3,645 $6,086 $23,053 $16,967
Operating Transfers In
General Fund 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,478 675
Street Improvement Fund 1,315 750 750 2,150 1,400
Developers Impact Fee-Park Fund 0 220 220 0 (220)
Utility Funds 86 153 263 0 (263)
California Avenue Parking District Permits Fund 67 0 0 00
Public Donation Fund 0 0 55 0(55)
Charleston Arastradero Safety Impact Fees Fund 82 82 82 47 (35)
Law Enforcement Services Fund 0 0 30 0(30)
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $11,450 $11,007 $11,202 $12,675 $1,473
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $73,779 $14,652 $17,288 $35,728 $18,440
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits 3,331 3,365 3,464 3,384 (80)
Capital Project Expenditures 20,361 17,708 17,918 32,571 14,653
SUBTOTAL EXPENSES $23,692 $21,073 $21,382 $35,955 $14,573
Operating Transfers Out 4,357 0 747 0 (747)
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $4,357 $0 $747 $0 $(747)
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $45,730 $(6,420) $(4,840)$(227) $4,613
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE YEAR-END BALANCE $8,648 $2,547 $4,108 $3,881 $(227)
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201228
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
KEY
Shaded areas denote new projects
TBD To Be Determined
Italicized text indicates reimbursement
Capital Fund
Buildings and Facilities
PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Preven-
ter Installation 250 0 0 0 0 $250
PF-12005 Council Conference Room
Renovations 125 0 0 0 0 $125
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Replacement 0 0 0 151 0 $151
PF-16000
Cubberley Community Cen-
ter Site-Wide Electrical Sys-
tems Replacement
0 0 0 150 1,000 $1,150
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo
Improvements 0 0 0 0 849 $849
AC-12001
Junior Museum & Zoo
Perimeter Fence and Foot-
path
50 0 0 0 0 $50
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electri-
cal Systems Replacement 0 0 170 0 0 $170
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center
Facilities Study 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop
Space Improvements 375 0 0 0 0 $375
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities
Act Compliance 150 100 100 100 100 $550
PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvement 0002670$267
PF-01003 Building Systems Improve-
ments 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improve-
ments 100 500 0 0 0 $600
PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot
Maintenance 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet
Replacement 080000$80
PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and
Electrical Upgrades 0 150 1,300 0 0 $1,450
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 29
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes
Replacement 105 105 105 105 105 $525
PF-10002 Lot J Structure Repair 5000000$500
PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical Sys-
tem Upgrade 0 100 400 0 0 $500
PE-11000 Main Library New Construc-
tion and Improvements 16,150 0 0 0 0 $16,150
Bonds (16,150)$(16,150)
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center
Improvements 0 0 341 550 0 $891
PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker
Room 0003000$300
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 150 150 150 150 150 $750
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improve-
ments 09060000$690
NET TOTAL BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES $2,105 $1,475 $3,366 $1,973 $2,404 $11,323
Parks and Open Space
PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park
Improvements 674 0 0 0 0 $674
PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Miti-
gation Program 200 0 0 0 0 $200
PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and
Road 0 0 292 0 0 $292
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Mainte-
nance 75 75 25 25 25 $225
PO-12002
LATP Site Development
Preparation and Security
Improvements
250 0 0 0 0 $250
PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground 1,300 0 0 0 0 $1,300
Local Agency Grant (1,000)$(1,000)
PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for
Soccer Field 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan
and Design 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improve-
ments 65 0 0 0 0 $65
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201230
PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing
Fields Netting 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave.
Irrigation Alternatives 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PG-06003
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Perimeter
Landscaping
150 150 150 150 150 $750
PE-06010 City Parks Improvements 0 440 200 200 200 $1,040
OS-07000 Foothills Park Road
Improvements 1500000$150
PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements
(formerly PE-07001)950000$95
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfac-
ing and Repair 0 100 100 100 100 $400
OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and
Ponds Maintenance 50 0 60 0 60 $170
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and
Amenities 136 150 164 175 175 $800
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emer-
gency Repairs 75 75 75 75 75 $375
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation 0 220 0 220 0 $440
Development Impact Fees (220) (220)$(440)
PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improve-
ments 0 1,260 0 0 0 $1,260
PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements
(formerly PE-11004)1000000$100
PE-14000 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer
Turf Replacement 0 100 625 0 0 $725
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 30 30 30 30 30 $150
PE-10002 Ventura Community Center
and Park 250000$25
NET TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE $2,775 $2,380 $1,721 $755 $815 $8,446
Streets and Sidewalks
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs 250 250 250 250 100 $1,100
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking
Improvements 750 250 225 225 225 $1,675
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 31
Gas Tax Fund (750)(250)(225)(225)(225)$(1,675)
PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck
Replacement 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PL-04010
Bicycle & Pedestrian Trans-
portation Plan - Implemen-
tation Project
50 50 50 50 50 $250
PL-11002 California Avenue - Transit
Hub Corridor Project 1,175 0 0 0 0 $1,175
Local Agency Grant (1,175)$(1,175)
PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Cor-
ridor Project 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 0 $4,000
PL-00026 Safe Routes to School 297 100 100 100 100 $697
Gas Tax Fund (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)$(500)
Local Agency Grant (528)$(528)
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 755 725 719 716 710 $3,625
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements 130 135 140 145 150 $700
General Fund (130) (135) (140) (145) (150)$(700)
PE-86070 Street Maintenance 3,429 3,754 3,754 3,754 3,754 $18,443
Street Improvement Fund (1,300) (1,300) (1,300) (1,300) (1,300)$(6,500)
PE-06011 Street Median Improve-
ments 0 156 156 156 156 $624
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and
Striping 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS
Upgrades 200 205 210 215 220 $1,050
General Fund (200) (205) (210) (215) (220)$(1,050)
NET TOTAL STREETS AND
SIDEWALKS $3,003 $4,734 $4,729 $5,725 $3,470 $21,661
Miscellaneous
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replace-
ment 180 180 180 0 0 $540
AC-86017 Art in Public Places 50 50 50 50 50 $250
General Fund (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)$(250)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201232
LB-11000
Furniture and Technology
for Library Measure N
Projects
3,125 1,600 0 0 0 $4,725
Local Agency Grant (3,125) (1,600)$(4,725)
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - Gen-
eral Fund CIP Projects 3,384 3,553 3,731 3,918 4,113 $18,700
General Fund (1,254) (1,291) (1,330) (1,353) (1,394)$(6,622)
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $2,311 $2,442 $2,581 $2,564 $2,719 $12,618
CAPITAL FUND $35,955 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $95,363
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(25,762)$(5,151)$(3,355)$(3,608)$(3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $10,194 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $54,048
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Miscellaneous
VR-16000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 0 2,874 $2,874
VR-15000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0003,2540$3,254
VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 1,332 0 0 0 $1,332
VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 2,182 0 0 $2,182
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Technology Fund
Technology
TE-99010 Acquisition of New Comput-
ers 75 75 75 75 75 $375
TE-11005 Implementation of New
Utility Rate Structures 1000000$100
Enterprise Funds (100)$(100)
TE-11001 Library Computer System
Software 3500000$350
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementa-
tion 150 215 0 0 0 $365
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 33
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure
Replacement 100 100 100 100 100 $500
Enterprise Funds (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)$(100)
Stanford (16) (16) (16) (16) (16)$(80)
TE-00010 Telephone System Replace-
ment 1,422 0 0 0 0 $1,422
Enterprise Funds (531)$(531)
TE-11004 Utilities Customer Bill Rede-
sign 1500000$150
Enterprise Funds (150)$(150)
TE-10001
Utilities Customer Billing
System Continuous
Improvements
150 250 250 250 250 $1,150
Enterprise Funds (150) (250) (250) (250) (250)$(1,150)
NET TOTAL TECHNOLOGY $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,497 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,412
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(967)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(2,111)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
Electric Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connec-
tions 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 $11,000
Others (850) (900) (925) (950) (1,000)$(4,625)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$1,150 $1,200 $1,275 $1,350 $1,400 $6,375
Distribution System - System Improvements
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer
Replacement 1,000 0 0 0 0 $1,000
EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tenny-
son 4/12 kV Conversion 0 120 400 0 0 $520
EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV
Tie 0 0 300 100 750 $1,150
EL-98003 Electric System Improve-
ments 1,200 2,300 2,400 2,450 2,500 $10,850
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201234
Others (145) (150) (160) (170) (180)$(805)
EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS 100 0 0 0 0 $100
EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12
kV Conversion 1500000$150
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo
Area 3500000$350
EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12 0 80 700 300 0 $1,080
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 0 400 270 0 0 $670
EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16 0 300 0 0 0 $300
EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20 0 0 500 500 0 $1,000
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Over-
head Transmission System 700 700 700 0 0 $2,100
EL-13002
Relocate Quarry Road/Hop-
kins Substations 60 kV Line
(Lane A & B)
000100750$850
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 20050556065$430
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV
Conversion 0 400 0 0 0 $400
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology
Installation 0 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 $11,000
Enterprise Funds (1,333) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000)$(7,333)
EL-11002
St. Francis/Oregon/Ama-
rillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conver-
sion
0 450 0 0 0 $450
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improve-
ments 165 170 180 185 190 $890
EL-89038 Substation Protection
Improvements 250 260 270 280 290 $1,350
EL-08001
UG District 42 - Embarcad-
ero Rd. (Between Emerson &
Middlefield)
0 0 150 2,000 500 $2,650
Others (750)$(750)
EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/
Embarcadero 0 150 2,000 500 0 $2,650
Others (700)$(700)
EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/
El Camino Real 150 800 150 0 0 $1,100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 35
Others (400)$(400)
EL-11010
UG District 47 - Middlefield,
Homer Avenue, Webster
Street and Addison Avenue
1,500 200 0 0 0 $1,700
Others (700)$(700)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $4,920 $6,497 $8,215 $6,555 $5,865 $32,052
General Services - Street Lights
EL-10009 Street Light System Conver-
sion Project 800 800 800 800 0 $3,200
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
STREET LIGHTS $800 $800 $800 $800 $0 $3,200
General Services - Communications
EL-89031 Communications System
Improvements 120 125 130 135 145 $655
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
COMMUNICATIONS $120 $125 $130 $135 $145 $655
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,695)$(2,783)$(3,785)$(3,870)$(3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
Fiber Optics Fund
Commercial Telecommunications
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Con-
nections 200 200 200 200 200 $1,000
Others (200) (200) (200) (200) (200)$(1,000)
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network Sys-
tem Improvements 300 300 300 200 200 $1,300
NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201236
Gas Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 710 720 730 752 790 $3,702
Others (710) (720) (730) (752) (790)$(3,702)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Distribution System - System Improvements
GS-16000 GMR Project 26 0 0 0 0 570 $570
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equip-
ment 064 068 0$132
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine 0 45 250 0 0 $295
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 306 315 325 335 352 $1,633
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements 200 206 212 219 230 $1,066
GS-10001 GMR - Project 20 5,970 0 0 0 0 $5,970
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 0 6,150 0 0 0 $6,150
GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 468 0 3,200 0 0 $3,668
GS-13001 GMR - Project 23 0 482 0 3,300 0 $3,782
GS-14003 GMR-Project 24 0 0 492 0 3,465 $3,957
GS-15000 GMR-Project 25 0 0 0 542 0 $542
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equip-
ment 034 036 0$70
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreim-
bursed 167 172 178 184 193 $893
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(710)$(720)$(730)$(752)$(790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
Water Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WS-80013 Water System Extensions 420 430 440 450 460 $2,200
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 37
Others (700) (709) (718) (728) (750)$(3,605)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(280)$(279)$(278)$(278)$(290)$(1,405)
Distribution System - System Improvements
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 0 0 0 0 344 $344
WS-09000 Seismic Water System
Upgrades 2,700 3,200 3,820 0 0 $9,720
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data 100 100 100 100 0 $400
Enterprise Funds (67) (67) (67) (67)$(268)
WS-11003 Water Distribution System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-80015 Water Meters 215 222 229 236 243 $1,145
WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities 500 500 500 8,000 16,000 $25,500
Others (8,000)$(8,000)
WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating
Improvements 0 860 590 0 0 $1,450
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant
Replacement 217 222 229 236 243 $1,147
WS-11004 Water System Supply
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 0 3,152 0 0 0 $3,152
WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 305 0 3,245 0 0 $3,550
WS-13001 WMR - Project 27 0 314 0 3,245 0 $3,559
WS-14001 WMR - Project 28 0 0 324 0 3,345 $3,669
WS-15002 WMR - Project 29 0 0 0 334 0 $334
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $4,382 $8,927 $9,406 $12,534 $12,639 $47,888
WATER FUND $4,869 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $58,356
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(767)$(776)$(785)$(795)$(8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $4,102 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $46,483
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201238
Wastewater Collection Fund
Collection System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 340 350 361 372 383 $1,806
Others (740) (750) (761) (771) (794)$(3,816)
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(400)$(400)$(400)$(399)$(411)$(2,010)
Collection System - System Improvements
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 29 0 0 0 0 340 $340
WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting
Machine 33 0 0 0 0 $33
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole
Rehab/Replacement 565 570 617 636 655 $3,043
WC-15002 Wastewater System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 25 300 2,912 0 0 0 $3,212
WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 26 0 310 3,000 0 0 $3,310
WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 24 2,830 0 0 0 0 $2,830
WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 27 0 0 320 3,090 0 $3,410
WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 28 0 0 0 330 3,183 $3,513
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $3,934 $4,004 $4,155 $4,281 $4,410 $20,784
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(740)$(750)$(761)$(771)$(794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
Refuse Fund
Miscellaneous
RF-11001 Landfill Closure 6,100 0 0 0 0 $6,100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 39
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assess-
ment & Retrofit 0 700 1,050 1,100 1,100 $3,950
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replace-
ment 0 500 1,450 1,500 1,550 $5,000
NET TOTAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
$0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Storm Drainage Fund
Collection System - System Improvements
SD-11101
Channing Avenue/Lincoln
Avenue Storm Drain
Improvements
1,590 1,680 1,430 0 0 $4,700
SD-06104
Connect Clara Drive Storm
Drains to Matadero Pump
Station
00000 $0
SD-13002
Matadero Creek Storm
Water Pump Station and
Trunk Lines Improvements
0 0 315 1,840 1,915 $4,070
SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood
Storm Drain Improvements 00000 $0
SD-06101
Storm Drain System
Replacement and Rehabili-
tation
572 590 607 626 644 $3,039
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $2,162 $2,270 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $11,809
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,162 $2,270 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $11,809
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund —
Total Expenditures
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201240
FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund — Total
Expenditures
$72.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
9
8
7
6
5
43
2
1
1- Capital Project Fund (General Fund) - 49%
2- Technology Fund - 3%
3- Electric Fund - 12%
4-Fiber Optics Fund - 1%
5- Gas Fund - 11%
6- Water Fund - 7%
7- Wastewater Collection Fund - 6%
8- Storm Drain Fund - 3%
9- Refuse Fund - 8%
FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund — Total
Funding Sources
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 41
FY 2012 Capital Projects by Fund — Total Funding
Sources
$72.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
3
4
5
6
7
8 2
110
9 1 - Infrastructure Reserve - 15%
2 - Transfer from General Fund - 2%
3 - Transfer from Enterprise Funds - 1%
4 - Gas Tax/Impact Fees- 3%
5 - General Obligation Bonds -22%
6 - Federal/State & Local Agencies - 8%
7 - Utility Rate Charges & Fees -35%
8 - Interest Income - 1%
9- Storm Drainage Fee - 3%
10- Fund Balance - 10%
FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects —
Total Expenditures by Category
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201242
FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects — Total
Expenditures by Category
$35.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
4
1
3
2
1- Buildings and Facilities - 51%
2- Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3- Parks and Open Space - 10%
4- Miscellaneous - 19%
FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects —
Total Funding Sources
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 43
FY 2012 General Fund Capital Projects — Total
Funding Sources
$35.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
2
5
6
4
3
1
1 - Infrastructure Reserve - 27%
2 - Street Improvement Fund/Development
Impact Fees Fund - 6%
3 - General Obligation Bonds - 44%
4 - Other Agencies - 16%
5 - General Fund -4%
6 - Interest Income - 3%
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201244
General Fund CIP Projects and Funding
Sources - Five Year Plan
General Fund CIP Projects and Funding Sources - Five
Year Plan
FUNDING SOURCE ($millions)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Infrastructure Reserve 0.3 0.9 1.9 0.1 0
General Fund Transfers* 10.5 10.9 11.3 11.8 10.3
General Obligation Bonds 16.2 0 0 0 0
Street Improvement Fund 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6
Others 6.7 2.7 1.0 1.1 0.9
General Fund CIP Projects 35.9 16.2 15.8 14.6 12.8
* General Fund transfers include the annual commitment of the General Fund to transfer to the Infrastructure Reserve and to
fund certain capital projects that have been traditionally funded by the General Fund. In FY 2012 the total General Fund
transfers of $10.5 million include $8.9 million for the annual commitment and $1.6 for General Fund specific projects. The
annual commitment is adjusted by an inflationary factor each year.
General Fund CIP Projects and Funding Sources
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
FISCAL YEAR
Am
o
u
n
t
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
Infrastructure Reserve General Fund Transfers* General Obligation Bonds Street Improvement Fund Others
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 45
General Fund Capital Projects Budgeted
General Fund Capital Projects Budgeted
Category 2008
Actual
2009
Actual
2010
Actual
2011
Projected
2008
Adopted
2009
Adopted
2010
Adopted
2011
Adopted
2012
Proposed
Land, Buildings and
Improvements 1,631 1,893 2,147 2,254 3,229 9,682 58,311 9,067 18,255
Equipment and
Miscellaneous 3,404 1,493 5,596 5,876 9,245 5,670 4,546 6,902 9,237
Roadway Network 5,778 5,879 6,144 6,451 5,432 4,775 3,317 7,466 7,186
Recreation and Open
Space Network 363 379 475 499 2,391 3,066 1,247 1,176 3,775
TOTALS $11,176 $9,644 $14,362 $15,080 $20,297 $23,193 67,421 $24,611 $38,453
HISTORICAL DEPRECIATION EXPENSE COMPARED TO BUDGETED INVESTMENTS IN CAPITAL ASSETS
Budgeted Investments in Capital AssetsDepreciation
NOTE: Depreciation is computed using the straight line method which means that cost of the asset is divided by its expected useful
life in years. This methodology is consistent with generally accepted accounting principles applied in the preparation of the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The City has assigned the useful lives listed below to capital assets:
FY 2012 Proposed Investments in Capital Assets
vs. Depreciation ($000)
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Depreciation Budgeted Investments in Capital Assets
Capital Projects Years
10-30
Computer equipment 4
Office machinery & equipment 5
Machinery & equipment 10
5-40
25-40Recreation and open space network includes major park facilities, park trails, bike paths and median
Roadway network includes pavement, striping & legends, curbs, gutters & sidewalks, parking lots,
traffic signage and bridges
Equipment:
Buildings and Structures
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201246
FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 47
FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
Project
Number Project TItle
FY 2011 Adopted
Budget Amount
Capital Fund
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance 150,000
PF-07000 Art Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades 2,600,000
AC-86017 Art in Public Places 25,000
PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping 100,000
PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements 100,000
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improvements 100,000
PF-01002 Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements 3,006,000
PG-11001 Cogswell Plaza Improvements (formerly PE-07004) 150,000
CC-11000 Cubberley Gym Activity Room 65,000
PF-06004 Cubberley Restroom Upgrades 300,000
PL-11001 Dinah SummerHill Pedestrian/Bicycle Path 300,000
PL-07002 El Camino Real/Stanford Ave Streetscape and Intersection Improve-1,663,000
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement 355,000
PF-05003 Foothills Park Interpretive Center Improvements 210,000
PE-11011 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project (formerly PL-11000) 250,000
PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and Improvements 1,400,000
PG-11002 Monroe Park Improvements (formerly PE-11003) 250,000
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Improvements 300,000
AC-09002 New Sound System for Lucie Stern Community Theatre 200,000
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair 100,000
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities 116,000
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs 75,000
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation 220,000
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 165,000
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects 3,365,807
PE-00104 San Antonio Medians 630,000
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 719,326
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 100,000
PE-86070 Street Maintenance 3,753,635
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing 30,000
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and Striping 50,000
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improvements 90,000
PE-10002 Ventura Community Center and Park 135,000
TOTAL CAPITAL FUND $21,073,768
Vehicle Replacement Fund
VR-07001 Automated Motor Pool Reservation and Vehicle Key Management Sys-20,000
FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201248
TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $20,000
Technology Fund
TE-10000 Collections Software 32,000
TE-07000 Enterprise Application Infrastructure Upgrade (formerly CIS/SAP Transi-75,000
TE-11005 Implementation of Restructured Tiered Rates on Bills 100,000
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementation 400,000
TE-11002 Police Mobile In-Car Video System Replacement 310,000
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement 1,250,000
TE-11003 Recurring Credit Card Payment 150,000
TE-00010 Telephone System Replacement 100,000
TE-10001 Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements 350,000
TE-11004 Utility Bill Information Enhancements 750,000
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY FUND $3,517,000
Electric Fund
EL-10008 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System 100,000
EL-89031 Communications System Improvements 115,000
EL-08000 E. Charleston 4/12 kV Conversion 450,000
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections 1,900,000
EL-98003 Electric System Improvements 2,100,000
EL-11004 Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos Road 400,000
EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12 kV Conversion 150,000
EL-09000 Middlefield Underground Rebuild 550,000
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area 150,000
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 80,000
EL-09003 Rebuild UG District 17 (Downtown) 100,000
EL-11006 Rebuild UG District 18 350,000
EL-10006 Rebuild UG District 24 750,000
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmission System 450,000
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 40,000
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion 40,000
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation 500,000
EL-11002 St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conversion 50,000
EL-10009 Street Light System Conversion Project 800,000
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements 160,000
EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements 250,000
EL-11001 Torreya Court Rebuild 100,000
EL-06002 UG District 45 - Downtown V 350,000
Project
Number Project TItle
FY 2011 Adopted
Budget Amount
FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 49
EL-11010 UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison 150,000
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND $10,085,000
Fiber Optics Fund
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections (formerly EL-06006) 200,000
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network System Improvements(formerly EL-06005) 200,000
TOTAL FIBER OPTICS FUND $400,000
Gas Fund
GS-10004 Automating Test Stations (Cathodic Protection) 100,000
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipment 60,000
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine 185,000
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 297,000
GS-11001 Gas Station 4 Rebuild 337,000
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 700,000
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements 195,000
GS-09002 GMR - Project 19 5,800,000
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 457,000
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment 32,000
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreimbursed 162,000
TOTAL GAS FUND $8,325,000
Water Fund
WS-08002 Emergency Water Supply Project 3,500,000
WS-11001 Vacuum Excavation Equipment 275,000
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data 100,000
WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improvements 200,000
WS-80015 Water Meters 209,000
WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities 500,000
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement 212,000
WS-80013 Water System Extensions 410,000
WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements 200,000
WS-10001 WMR - Project 24 2,950,000
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 292,000
TOTAL WATER FUND $8,848,000
Wastewater Collection Fund
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement 560,000
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 330,000
Project
Number Project TItle
FY 2011 Adopted
Budget Amount
FY 2011 Adopted CIP Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201250
WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements 200,000
WC-10002 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 23 2,750,000
WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 24 290,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,130,000
Refuse Fund
RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area 750,000
RF-10002 Flare Relocation Project 300,000
RF-11001 Landfill Closure 600,000
TOTAL REFUSE FUND $1,650,000
Wastewater Treatment Fund
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit 1,050,000
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replacement 1,200,000
WQ-80022 System Flow Meter 250,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $2,500,000
Storm Drainage Fund
SD-11101 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements 895,000
SD-06101 Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation 564,000
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE FUND $1,459,000
GRAND TOTAL $62,007,768
Project
Number Project TItle
FY 2011 Adopted
Budget Amount
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 51
CAPITAL FUND PROJECTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201252
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 53
General Fund Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
he infrastructure needs of the community continue to be one of the priorities for the City
Council. The commitment to infrastructure underscores its importance to the future of the
City and ensures that repair and replacement of existing infrastructure occur on a regular
basis.
CLASSIFICATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECTS
The 2012-16 CIP budget document list projects by a classification as follows:
• Buildings and Facilities
• Streets and Sidewalks (includes traffic and transportation)
• Parks and Open Space
• Miscellaneous
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE (IR)
The Infrastructure Reserve (IR) was originally created as a mechanism to accumulate funding
required to complete a 10- year, $100 million infrastructure rehabilitation program (IMP) that would
repair or renovate existing buildings and facilities, streets and sidewalks, parks and open space, and
transportation systems. The need to maintain infrastructure on a systematic basis requires that the IR
remain healthy as a source of funding.
The IR is to be primarily used to fund the projects identified in the original IMP, and any other
projects critical to the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Secondarily, should Council choose, the
IR may be used for major capital projects involving the acquisition or renovation of infrastructure not
previously included in the IMP.
Since the IR is to be used for priority capital projects that will be reviewed by the Council, no
maximum reserve level is established. The General Fund committed an annual base transfer of $8.6
million to IR. The transfer is increased every year by the consumer price index.
Unspent monies from capital projects are returned annually to the IR and retained within the Capital
Project Fund. Investment income from this reserve is also retained within the IR to fund future capital
project needs.
CIP BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
The Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Fund CIP includes $35 million in project expenditures. $25 million of
these projects will be funded by Measure N library bonds, grants, gas tax, impact fees, and the IR, and
$10 million by a transfer from the General Fund.
Below is a highlight of the Fiscal Year 2012 projects:
• Funding of $16.2 million for the construction of the Main Library. Measure N bonds will
provide the funds for this project
T
General Fund Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201254
• Funding of $1.3 million for the construction of the Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park. The
City will contribute up to $0.3 million to the project, and the Friends of the Magical Bridge will provide
the remaining $1 million. This project will only proceed if the Friends are able to fully fund their
committed match.
• Funding of $3.1 million in FY 2012 and $1.6 million in FY 2013 to fund the purchase of essential
furniture, equipment and technology for the Measure N bond projects at the new Mitchell Park Library
and Community Center, the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Gifts from the Palo Alto Library
Foundation or other organizations will provide the necessary funds
• Funding of $0.7 million to upgrade and renovate Eleanore Pardee Park for safety and accessibility. The
project will focus on pathway repair and turf replacement, fencing, playground, benches, picnic tables,
drinking fountains and barbecue pits. The IR will provide the necessary funds
• Funding of $0.1 million for Scott Park to provide necessary upgrades to the play equipment and play
area surfacing. The IR will provide the necessary funds
• Funding of $0.13 million to improve the public meeting space on the first floor of City Hall - the
Council Conference Room. The improvements will include mechanical and electrical upgrades,
storage, new furnishings and AV technology. The renovations will make the public meeting space more
comfortable and increase its functionality. The IR will provide the necessary funds
• Funding of $0.2 million for the Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program. The project will provide
for clearing of brush and undergrowth allowing a safe travel route during a major fire event in the
Foothills area. The IR will provide the necessary funds
• Funding of $3.4 million for the annual Street Maintenance Project. Funding will be provided by the Gas
Tax Fund, street cut fees and the General Fund. Since FY 2011, funding for annual Street Maintenance
Project has been increased by $2 million each year. This represents a step-up effort to address the City’s
streets’ increased maintenance needs
• Funding of $1.7 million for the California Avenue -Transit Hub Corridor Project. A grant of $1.2
million was received from the Valley Transit Authority to fund the project. The grant requires $0.5
million in local funding, which will be provided by the IR, and was added to the project in FY 2011
midyear.
There has been a substantial amount of work accomplished with the IMP implementation. Since its inception
ten years ago, approximately $200 million has been appropriated to capital projects.
INFRASTRUCTURE BACKLOG
On March 18, 2008, staff presented to the City Council Finance Committee (CMR:167:08) an update of the
General Fund infrastructure backlog. The report was updated in May 2009. The updated report indicated that
the estimated amount of the backlog in the next twenty years is $450 million; if the Police Safety Building
(estimated at $60) is added to the backlog, the total amount is $510 million. Details of the infrastructure
backlog are presented in the "Supplementary Information" section of this budget document.
General Fund Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 55
INFRASTRUCTURE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
In 2010, the City Council formed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to advise
Council on the City’s infrastructure requirements and possible financing measures that could reduce or
eliminate the backlog and address the future needs. The IBRC has been meeting since November 2010. It has
divided itself into three subcommittees: Surface projects (parks, roadways and transportation), Above Ground
projects (buildings), and Finance. The first two are in the process of working with staff to examine the City’s
physical assets and to prioritize them for future work. The latter is examining City revenue and infrastructure
resources as well as potential financing instruments.
The IBRC subcommittees are expected to arrive at updated "gaps" in infrastructure and maintenance
spending requirements. The "gap" refers to the amount of annual spending required to: eliminate backlogged
work on existing infrastructure, replace or rehabilitate existing, outdated facilities, and the ongoing
maintenance effort required so that the City never finds itself in a position of having a backlog of
infrastructure work in the future. City staff will work with the IBRC to develop strategies to address these gaps
in a systematic and meaningful manner over a period of years. These results of this effort will be incorporated
in the next five-year Capital Budget.
INFRASTRUCTURE STAFFING
The General Fund allocates to Capital Project Fund a total of 21.92 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees
from the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. The total salaries and benefits costs are presented as a project
instead of as a separate line item in the financial summary.
The salaries and benefits project is a placeholder for the estimated salaries and benefit costs of $3.4 million for
the 21.92 FTE staff assigned to manage General Fund CIP projects. As part of the year-end process, this
amount will be allocated to all General Fund CIP projects that are charged with the actual costs of salaries and
benefits. At the end of each fiscal year, any unused balance will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve.
SUSTAINABILITY BUDGET
The City has an existing sustainability contingency project in the amount of $0.1 million. During a project's
design phase, if a project manager identifies elements in the project that meet the criteria for sustainability
funds, the project manager will take part in an approval process to get these funds transferred into the
qualifying project. The Sustainability Project will be used for specific measures that are either cost-effective
and resource-efficient projects or sustainability measures identified under nationally recognized standards.
The sustainability budget was reduced by $.3 million in FY 2011 to $.1 million. The sustainability budget is
gradually being phased out since most of the CIP projects now include sustainability elements in the project
costs.
General Fund Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201256
NEW PROJECTS
The 2012-2016 CIP five-year plan includes the addition of the new projects listed on the table below. These
projects are also identified as new on the project page.
CIP NO.
Building and Facilities
PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Preventer Installation
PF-12005 Council Conference Room Renovations
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement
PF-16000 Cubberley Community Center Site-Wide Electrical Systems Replacement
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements
AC-12001 Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electrical Systems Replacement
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center Facilities Study
PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop Space Improvements
Parks and Open Space
PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements
PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program
PE-12002 Golf Course Cart Path and Road
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance
PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation and Security Improvements
PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground
PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field
PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design
PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements
PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Netting
PE-12002 Tree Wells -University Avenue Irrigation Alternatives
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements
PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck Replacement
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement
2012-2016 CIP
List of New Projects
GENERAL FUND
Project Title
Street and Sidewalks
Miscellaneous
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 57
GENERAL FUND PROJECTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201258
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 59
Infrastructure Map
Cit)' of Palo Alto
2012-2016
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Capl.1llmprOl-cmenl Progmro
CIP Projects Located at Various Places
® ® 0 0
@ @ @J Gl
@ Iii> ~ @
&1iJ@1iJ
Gl @ @ @
" " ,.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201260
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 61
Buildings and Facilities
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201262
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 63
PF-93009Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE
(PF-93009)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-32
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require miti-
gated negative declaration if Historic Building
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for accessibility upgrades to City
facilities, programs, services, and activities. It includes continued
funding for improvements such as path of travel, restroom upgrades,
drinking fountains, and counters. This funding will also be utilized for
other CIP project design or construction phases where accessibility
improvements are identified. For specific work to be completed, see
Supplemental Information.
Justification: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 affects most
aspects of the City's programs, services, and facilities. In order to
comply with the federal law and related regulations, the City prepared
a Transition Plan and Self-Evaluation Final Study that identified physical
obstacles and described improvements to make facilities, programs,
and services accessible. Implementation of this plan is ongoing.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant services, including
architectural and structural, mechanical and electrical engineering,
may be required.
FY 2012: Restroom upgrades at The Junior Museum
FY 2013: Parking Lot and Path of Travel upgrades at various City
facilities
FY 2014: Restroom upgrades at Golf Course Clubhouse and Pro Shop
FY 2015: Path of Travel upgrades at Golf Course Clubhouse and Pro
Shop
FY 2016: Restroom upgrades at Fire Stations 3 & 5
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $550,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $550,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201264
PF-07002Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement
BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENT
(PF-07002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC, ARB,
PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Project may require environmen-
tal review.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review. This project may require Site and
Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace deteriorated exterior siding and
structural framing as required.
Justification: This project is required to maintain the integrity of the
building shell, prevent water infiltration and to prevent further
deterioration of the building framing and structure.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $267,000 $267,000
Other
Total Budget Request $267,000 $267,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 65
PF-01003Building Systems Improvements
BUILDING SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS (PF-01003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require Miti-
gated Negative Declaration if Historic Building.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides electrical, mechanical, and
structural system upgrades as required at various City facilities.
Upgrades may include main and emergency power sources, fixtures,
fire alarm systems and devices, HVAC, and structural repairs or
reinforcement. System upgrades required for code compliance are also
provided through this project. Implementation of this plan is ongoing.
See Supplemental Information for work in upcoming years.
Justification: This project will allow upgrades to the electrical systems
in facilities with systems that are overloaded or are no longer efficient.
Due to increased usage of computers and other devices over the past
ten years, many buildings' electrical or wiring systems are outdated
and at-capacity. Heating and air-conditioning units in older buildings
are at the end of their useful life. Structural systems have become
damaged or fatigued due to heavier equipment requirements or
increased loading.
Supplemental Information: Projects identified for upcoming work
include: FY 2012 - Fire Station 1 Mechanical; FY 2013 - Golf Course
Parking Lot Lighting; FY 2014 - Fire Station 4 Mechanical; FY 2015 -
Utility Control Center Mechanical Controls; FY 2016 - Art Center
Basement Mechanical & Lighting
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201266
PF-09000Children's Theatre Improvements
CHILDREN'S THEATRE IMPROVEMENTS (PF-09000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace or upgrade mechanical and
electrical systems, and replace finishes as necessary. The systems will
be designed to meet current code and user need, and to optimize
operational and energy efficiency.
Justification: The elements included in this project are due for
replacement or upgrade based on their age and/or condition. These
improvements provide for ongoing rehabilitation of the building
structure and systems to meet the needs and safety of theatre staff and
the public.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant shall provide all necessary
design services to evaluate existing systems and conditions, provide
conceptual and final design, and produce construction documents.
Consultant shall also provide construction administration services.
Services shall include architectural, structural, mechanical and
electrical engineering.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $100,000 $100,000
Construction Costs $500,000 $500,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $500,000 $600,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 67
PE-09003City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance
CITY FACILITY PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE
(PE-09003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require Site
and Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for the repair, resurfacing or
reconstruction of parking lots and walkways at various city facilities. As
required, re-striping and signage will be included. Work proposed
under this project includes parking lot resurfacing at Art Center, Fire
Stations #3 and #5, Jr. Museum, Ventura, Animal Shelter, and Lucie
Stern Center.
Justification: Paving surfaces at various city facilities are in need of
repair to correct uneven surfaces. These include walkways, parking
lots, patios, etc.
Supplemental Information: Paving of the parking lot at the Art
Center will be done in conjunction with the Art Center project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $330,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201268
PF-12004City-Wide Backflow Preventer Installation NEW
CITY-WIDE BACKFLOW PREVENTER INSTALLATION
(PF-12004)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will install backflow preventer devices on all
City owned water supply services that currently do not have backflow
protection. These water supply services are located in parks, median
strips, and City facilities. There are approximately 67 known locations
that are unprotected. The backflow preventer devices will be installed
to meet current State codes.
Justification: The State requires that all water supply services be
protected by backflow preventer devices. The City’s Utilities
Department is mandating that we comply with this regulation because
they could be faced with fines if the City does not comply.
Supplemental Information: A detailed survey of locations, device
sizes, and device types needs to be completed by in-house staff and/or
with the help of a consultant.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $250,000 $250,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $250,000 $250,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 69
PF-11001Council Chamber Carpet Replacement
COUNCIL CHAMBER CARPET REPLACEMENT
(PF-11001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces the worn carpet at City Hall Council
Chambers. The project is being separated out from the on-going
interior finish capital maintenance plan as a stand alone project
because of the project expense.
Justification: The existing carpet is one year past its scheduled
replacement date; and is worn, stained, and stretched out of shape.
The light color of the carpet shows the traffic wear and stains. The
wrinkling creates a potential tripping hazard. Given the use and the
high public visibility of the space, replacement is recommended.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2009 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $80,000 $80,000
Other
Total Budget Request $80,000 $80,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201270
PF-12005Council Conference Room Renovations NEW
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM RENOVATIONS
(PF-12005)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: May require ARB and HRB
review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project focuses on improving public meeting space
on the first floor of City Hall - Council Conference Room. The
improvements will include mechanical and electrical upgrades,
storage, new furnishings and AV technology. These renovations will
will make this public meeting space more comfortable and increase
functionality of the room.
Justification: The Council Conference Room is used extensively for
public meetings and space improvements will improve functionality,
organization, and the professional image of the City's public spaces.
Many of the room finishes and amenities are worn, outdated and need
to be replaced.
Consultant Services Scope: A consultant will develop conceptual
design to improve programmatic use of the public spaces.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $125,000 $125,000
Other
Total Budget Request $125,000 $125,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 71
PF-15003Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement NEW
CUBBERLEY AUDITORIUM ROOF REPLACEMENT
(PF-15003)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2015-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The mineral cap roof is nearing its useful life. Spray-on
cool roofing is recommended to extend its roof protection. The roof
systems will be designed to meet current cool roof codes to optimize
energy efficiency.
Justification: This project provides the means to rehabilitate the
existing roof prior to the roof system failing and causing structural
damage. It extends the life of the existing roof by means of a spray on
roofing. However, if the roof deteriorates too far, spray-on roofing will
not be viable. The complete roof will then need to be replaced at a
much higher cost.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $151,000 $151,000
Other
Total Budget Request $151,000 $151,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201272
PF-16000Cubberley Community Center Site-Wide Electrical Systems Replacement NEW
CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER SITE-WIDE
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT (PF-16000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces original electrical systems in Wings
A, B, C, D, E, F, FH, I, J, K, L, M-1, 2, & 3, S, T1, T2, U, & V. It also includes the
replacement of the main transformer and switch gear. The new
electrical systems will be designed to meet current building codes and
user needs.
Justification: Many components of the electrical systems at the
Cubberley site are over 50 years old and per the 2008 Kitchell report
they are all beyond their useful life. New replacement parts for many of
the systems are no longer available. These improvements provide for
ongoing rehabilitation of the building systems to meet the needs and
safety of the City staff and the public.
Supplemental Information: Consultants shall provide all necessary
design services to evaluate existing conditions, provide final design,
and produce construction documents.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $150,000 $1,000,000 $1,150,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $1,000,000 $1,150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 73
PF-13002Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades
CUBBERLEY MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
UPGRADES (PF-13002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: N/A
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA as a maintenance project.
• Design Elements: Exterior modifications may
require ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces original mechanical and electrical
systems in the Auditorium and Gyms A and B. The new systems will be
designed to meet current building codes and user needs, and to
optimize operation and energy efficiency.
Justification: Many components of the mechanical and electrical
systems at the Cubberley site are over 50 years old. They have been in
place far beyond their useful lives and require replacement. Many of
them are inefficient and inappropriately sized for the current facility.
Radiant heat systems wil be replaced with above-floor systems. This
project was previously listed as CIP PF-04010 but due to budget
constraints funds were reprogrammed and the project postponed.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant Services will be used for code
required updates to the bid package, and construction administration.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $150,000 $150,000
Construction Costs $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $1,300,000 $1,450,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201274
PF-02022Facility Interior Finishes Replacement
FACILITY INTERIOR FINISHES REPLACEMENT
(PF-02022)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require
design review for historic structures.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces worn interior finishes at various City
facilities. Work scheduled includes replacement of floor finishes such
as carpet and tile.
Justification: Interior finishes throughout City facilities are designated
for replacement as part of an ongoing capital maintenance plan.
Finishes are typically upgraded as other renovation projects are
undertaken. For those facilities that will not be renovated for several
years, this project provides the resources to accomplish that work. Due
to past budget constraints, the capital maintenance plan to replace
worn interior finishes has fallen behind schedule by as much as eight
years.
Supplemental Information: The industry standard timeframe for
commercial carpet life is 5-10 years. Many City facilities have carpet
that is 10-15 years old. This five-year plan needs to be aggressively
completed to keep from falling further behind in carpet maintenance.
While the five-year plan prioritizes facilities by need, size, and public
access, other facilities continue to be delayed.
Carpet replacement is scheduled in the following areas: FY 2012 — City
Hall floors 2 & 3; FY 2013 — Lucie Stern Community Theatre and City
Hall floors 5 & 8; FY 2014 — City Hall floors Mezzanine & 6, and Fire
Stations 1 & 4 dormitory rooms; FY 2015 — City Hall floors 7, Police
Level A & 1st floor, and FY 2016 - City Hall floors 4, A-IT, A-Dispatch, &
MSC Bldg A.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $525,000
Other
Total Budget Request $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $525,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 75
PE-14012Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements NEW
JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO IMPROVEMENTS
(PE-14012)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies L-61,C-9,C-17,C-
19,C-21,C24,C-26,C-32. Programs C-18,c-19, and C-
27
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC and
PC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: none
• Operating: none
• Telecommunications: none
Description: This project includes architectural, engineering, and
construction services for the design and construction of new
restrooms, customer service counter, and electrical systems. The
existing customer service counter and one of the two existing
restrooms would be demolished and the remaining restroom
renovated. This project will also be replacing the original electrical
systems which will include the switch gear and panel boards to meet
the current building codes and user needs.
Justification: The Junior Museum & Zoo hosts 150,000 visitors
annually with inadequate restrooms and a narrow customer service
counter. Existing restrooms may only be used by one individual at a
time which is insufficient for the needs of Junior Museum & Zoo
patrons. They also do not provide enough fixtures and there are no
fixtures scaled for use by children. The restrooms do not meet ADA
standards. The existing front desk is narrow and does not provide
adequate space to address the needs of visitors.
Consultant Services Scope: Consultant shall provide all necessary
design services to evaluate existing conditions.
Supplemental Information: Many components of the electrical
systems at the JMZ are almost 70 years old and per the 2008 Kitchell
report they are all beyond their useful life. New replacement parts for
many of the systems are no longer available. These improvements
provide for ongoing rehabilitation of the building systems to meet the
needs and safety of the City staff and the public.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $849,000 $849,000
Other
Total Budget Request $849,000 $849,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201276
AC-12001Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath NEW
JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO PERIMETER FENCE AND
FOOTPATH (AC-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies L-61, C-9, C-17, C-
21, C-24, C-26, C-32. Programs C-19 and C-27.
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
Description: This project is for engineering and construction to
replace and relocate a perimeter fence on the north side of the Zoo
and to relocate a footpath between the Museum and a playground.
New alignment of the fence will require relocation of an existing
decomposed granite pathway between the playground and the
Museum. A previous CIP funded repaving of the Zoo and partial
replacement of the perimeter fence, but funds were insufficient to
complete the full project.
Justification: The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires all licensed
animal facilities to maintain a perimeter fence. The Association of Zoos
accreditation standards for the perimeter fence require that the fence
be a minimum of eight feet high. The existing fence on the north side
of the Zoo is only 6 feet high. Plans for the new pathway and fence
have been approved by the Planning Department and reviewed by the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 77
PF-10002Lot J Structure Repair
LOT J STRUCTURE REPAIR (PF-10002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 42.12%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, C-25
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review. This project may require Site
and Design Reveiw.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will remove the wood members of the
exterior of the Lot J parking structure with alternate materials. The
exterior of the Lot J parking structure has wood members for
architectural interest and sceening.
Justification: The wood structure on the exterior of this building is too
heavy and continues to detach and fall due to the weight and age of
the material. Alternate materials with a longer life expectancy will be
proposed during the design phase of the project. The project was
funded initially for design services only with construction cost to be
determined at a later period.
Supplemental Information: This project will be reimbursed by the
University Avenue Parking District funding (since it is within the
assessment district) once the exact cost is determined.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $81,182
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 34,196
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $500,000 $500,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $500,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201278
PF-13001Lucie Stern Mechanical System Upgrade
LUCIE STERN MECHANICAL SYSTEM UPGRADE
(PF-13001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require Miti-
gated Negative Declaration if Historic Building.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace or upgrade mechanical systems
and ductwork. The existing heating-only system will be replaced with
a heating, ventilating and air conditioning system. The systems will be
designed to meet current codes, user needs, and to optimize
operational and energy efficiency.
Justification: The elements included in this project are due for
replacement or upgrade based on their age and/or condition. These
improvements provide for ongoing rehabilitation of the building
systems to meet the needs of the public and staff.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant shall provide all necessary
design services to evaluate existing conditions, provide conceptual
and final design, produce construction documents, and provide
construction administration services.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $100,000 $100,000
Construction Costs $400,000 $400,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $400,000 $500,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 79
PF-15002Lucie Stern Theater Electrical Systems Replacement NEW
LUCIE STERN THEATER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
REPLACEMENT (PF-15002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-32
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces original electrical systems in the
Theater and Theater Scene Shop. This includes the replacement of
switch gear. The new electrical systems will be designed to meet
current building codes and user needs.
Justification: New replacement parts for many of the electrical
systems are no longer available. The 2008 Kitchell report states the
electrical systems are all beyond their useful life. These improvements
provide for ongoing rehabilitation of the building systems to meet the
needs and safety of the Theater staff and the public.
Supplemental Information: Consultants shall provide all necessary
design services to evaluate existing conditions, provide final design,
and produce construction documents.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $170,000 $170,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $170,000 $170,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201280
PE-11000Main Library New Construction and Improvements
MAIN LIBRARY NEW CONSTRUCTION AND
IMPROVEMENTS (PE-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 30%
• Percent Spent: 16.64%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-22, Program C-20
• Art in Public Places: Yes
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: An addendum to the final EIR for
the Main Library was approved on July 21, 2008
(CMR:321:08).
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB, HRB, LAC, PAC Review.
• Operating: This project will require annual main-
tenance and replacement of furnishings and tech-
nology.
• Telecommunications: Telecommunications sys-
tems will be needed.
Description: This project provides for work as outlined in the Measure
N bond in November 2008. This project includes construction of a
detached program room and expanded group study rooms at the
existing building for a total of approximately 4,000 additional square
feet. It also includes a building systems upgrade to mechanical,
electrical and lighting systems to bring the building to current codes
and standards. Carpet and other worn items will be replaced.
Justification: Over the years, the interior spaces of the Main Library
have become more crowded due to increased usage. Lighting,
mechanical and other systems need to be upgraded. This project will
provide more public areas, upgrade existing building components, and
improve seismic and mechanical systems.
Supplemental Information: Computers and furnishings will be
provided from non-bond funding. During construction, the Main
Library services will be relocated at the Art Center to a temporary
facility. Details for the relocation of programs will be developed as part
of the design process in FY 2011. A construction management firm will
be needed to supplement existing staffing levels. Design costs include
design consultant fees, construction administration, testing &
inspection, construction management, building and other permits,
and design escalation.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,850,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 307,886
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $2,300,000 $2,300,000
Construction Costs $13,850,000 $13,850,000
Other
Total Budget Request $16,150,000 $16,150,000
Revenues: $16,150,000 $16,150,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Bonds($16,150,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 81
PF-05002Municipal Service Center Improvements
MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS
(PF-05002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2015
• Percent Spent: 31.32%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: Exterior changes of this project
are subject to ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for the replacement of original
mechanical and electrical systems and lighting installed in 1966 at
buildings A, B, and C of the Municipal Service Center. In addition
roofing systems for Municipal Service Center Buildings A, B, and C will
be replaced in FY 2015.
Justification: Lighting, mechanical, and electrical equipment at the
Municipal Service Center is outdated and inefficient. Various remodels
have occurred in the administrative and shop areas with added load to
the mechanical and electrical systems. The use of many areas has
changed over the years without adequate upgrades to the building
systems. The systems no longer support the current operation at this
site.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant shall provide all necessary
design services including architectural design, mechanical, electrical
and structural engineering. Consultant shall also provide conceptual
design, final design, construction documents and construction
administration services.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $561,308
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 175,794
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $341,000 $550,000 $891,000
Other
Total Budget Request $341,000 $550,000 $891,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201282
PE-12004Municipal Services Center Facilities Study NEW
MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER FACILITIES STUDY
(PE-12004)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, Program C-19
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will study options for locating City functions,
personnel and equipment currently located at the Municipal Services
Center (MSC) and Animal Services Center (ASC). One alternative would
be to retain the current functions and buildings at the MSC/ASC.
Another would be to retain the functions at the MSC/ASC, but rebuild
the buildings rather than update them. Other Alternatives would
involve changing the functions at the MSC/ASC and consider new uses
for some or all of the MSC/ASC site.
Justification: The MSC constructed in 1966 and many features of the
building are well beyond their design life and must be replaced or
rebuilt if the functions are to remain in their current location. The
purpose of this Project is to gather data on the alternatives so that a
decision can be made among those alternatives. At that time, either
project PF-05002 (see supplemental info) would be restarted, or
another course of action taken.
Consultant Services Scope: A consultant will be hired to prepare
alternatives and planning level costs.
Supplemental Information: Staff proposed to begin the rebuilding
process through CIP No. PF-05002; a $640,000 project to rebuild the
electrical and mechanical equipment in Buildings A, B, and C. Council
directed staff to defer this project until a longer term plan for the MSC
becomes clear. The Functions performed at the MSC/ASC are
contained in the Public Works, Utilities, Administrative Services,
Community Services and Police Departments. The Study must
therefore consider all users, and consider related needs of each
Department which may or may not be currently housed at the MSC.
Thus the consultant must review the programs being implemented by
the departments, and not merely the space requirements. The study
must also look at functional relationships among the groups to take
advantage of economies of co-locating groups.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $100,000 $100,000
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 83
PF-12001Parks & PWD Tree Shop Space Improvements NEW
PARKS & PWD TREE SHOP SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
(PF-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project transitions from CSD CIP PG-09003. This new
CIP covers the construction phase. The project renovates and improves
health and safety, Title 24 requirements, ventilation, and space
utilization in various shop spaces.
Justification: The existing shop areas for Parks Maintenance and
Public Works Trees has inadequate ventilation for working on gas
powered equipment, inadequate heating, inadequate lighting, poor
space utilization, and poor space layout. This project will improve
employee health and safety, comfort, and efficiency.
Supplemental Information: The design and construction documents
were completed with the PG-09003 CIP.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $375,000 $375,000
Other
Total Budget Request $375,000 $375,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201284
PF-15000Rinconada Pool Locker Room
RINCONADA POOL LOCKER ROOM (PF-15000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Goals C-4, C-5; Policies C-
22, C-24, C-32; Programs C-19, C-27
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project renovates the Rinconada Pool changing
room inclusive of changing area, restroom, showers, and the addition
of lockers. Currently, the changing room has no lockers. In addition,
the changing room needs to be brought up to ADA standards. The
pool facility was built in 1933, and the last renovation to the changing
room was in 1957.
Justification: Aside from being outdated, the changing room no
longer meets the needs of pool users. The pool is used year round by
adults, youth, children, and infants for fitness, recreation, aquatics
safety, classes and camps. Due to its age, it is not ADA compliant and
thus not accessible to all. Without any lockers, swimmers and visitors
are not able to secure personal belongings while swimming. The
showers are inefficient and often in need of repair due to aged
plumbing and clogged shower heads.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $300,000 $300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $300,000 $300,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 85
PF-00006Roofing Replacement
ROOFING REPLACEMENT (PF-00006)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: HRB, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for ongoing roofing maintenance at
various City facilities including major repairs, replacement, roof deck,
and sheet metal repair or replacement. Roofs scheduled for
replacement are based on an annual evaluation of their condition. See
Supplemental Information below for the schedule of re-roofing.
Justification: The life expectancy of most roofs at City facilities is 20 to
25 years. There are facilities in the inventory with roof systems that are
at or near their life expectancy. This project provides the means to re-
roof facilities that are failing or will soon fail.
Supplemental Information: Facilities schedule for re-roofing are:
Fiscal Year 2012: Cubberley Buildings K and J; Fiscal Year 2013: Fire
Station 1, Cubberley Building S, and Art Center Car Port; Fiscal Year
2014: Cubberley Buildings M, P and Pavilion; Fiscal Year 2015: Bayland
Athletic Center Restrooms, Cubberley Buildings L and FH; Fiscal Year
2016: Rinconada RR & Snack Shack and Cubberley Buildings T1 and T2.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201286
PF-06002Ventura Buildings Improvements
VENTURA BUILDINGS IMPROVEMENTS (PF-06002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-32
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace/upgrade mechanical and
electrical systems, and will provide accessibility improvements to this
facility. Radiant heat systems will be replaced with above-floor systems.
Justification: Mechanical and electrical systems are original and have
reached the end of their useful lives. These need to be replaced for
more reliable and energy efficient systems that meet current code
requirements and user needs. Under the lease agreement with Palo
Alto Community Child Care (PACCC), the City is responsible for capital
maintenance.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant shall provide complete
design services to upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems at
this facility. Services shall include architectural design, mechanical,
electrical, and structural engineering services as required. Consultant
shall evaluate building systems, provide conceptual and final design,
construction documents, and construction administration services.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $90,000 $90,000
Construction Costs $600,000 $600,000
Other
Total Budget Request $90,000 $600,000 $690,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 87
Streets and Sidewalks
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201288
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 89
PL-04010Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan - Implementation Project
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN -
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT (PL-04010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2004-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 31.73%
• Managing Department: Planning and Commu-
nity Environment
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-22, T-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require an envi-
ronmental assessment.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will require minor ongo-
ing maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the design and construction of
roadway geometrics and signage improvements within the City’s
transportation infrastructure to help implement high priority projects
within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Project samples
include the implementation of bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes,
bicycle routes, bicycle parking projects, and off-road trails.
Justification: The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan will provide
safer, traffic-calmed biking routes with reduced conflicts with motor
vehicles, as alternatives to more congested arterial streets including
bicycle parking facilities.
Supplemental Information: The City has an active Bicycle &
Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan that is currently under
development in FY 2012. This project will allow for the immediate
implementation of projects within the new plan.
Consultant services may be used to assist in the design of
improvements and to provide assistance with monitoring projects.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $289,497
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 91,861
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201290
PL-11002California Avenue - Transit Hub Corridor Project
CALIFORNIA AVENUE - TRANSIT HUB CORRIDOR
PROJECT (PL-11002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Planning and Commu-
nity Environment
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies T-6, T-10, T-14, T-
19, T-22, T-23, T-30, T-31 and T-34
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Negative Declaration approved
on February 14, 2011.
• Design Elements: This project may require
review by the ARB and PTC.
• Operating: This project may increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the design and construction of
streetscape enhancements along California Avenue between El
Camino Real and the Caltrain — Park Blvd Plaza. Improvements
include the installation of community identity markers; traffic calming
treatments such as bulb-outs and a 4-lane to 2-lane roadway
reduction; enhanced mid-block pedestrian crosswalks; bicycle and
pedestrian streetscape elements; and community-focused elements at
the Park Blvd Plaza.
Justification: The California Avenue — Transit Hub Corridor Project
implements the City’s Comprehensive Plan vision for the corridor. The
Transit Hub Corridor Project is consistent with the alternatives under
consideration for the California Avenue Concept Plan, which is
intended to provide further direction for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan vision.
Supplemental Information: Consultant and contract services will be
used to implement this project including consultant services for the
design and construction management of the project.
A $1,175,200, grant was received in FY 2011 from the VTA —
Community Design & Transportation (CDT) program that requires a
$550,000 local match.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $550,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,175,200 $1,175,200
Other
Total Budget Request $1,175,200 $1,175,200
Revenues: $1,175,200 $1,175,200
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Local Agency Grant($1,175,200)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 91
PE-13011Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT
(PE-13011)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: T-25, T-34, T-40, and Pro-
gram T-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Mitigated Negative Declaration
approved by Council January 2003
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
review.
• Operating: Maintenance will be required by Pub-
lic Works once project is completed.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement the permanent
reconfiguration identified in the Council adopted Charleston/
Arastradero Corridor Plan, including engineering design and
construction of new landscaped median islands, bulb outs, enhanced
bike lanes, new street trees and new street lighting.
Justification: The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan was adopted
by City Council in January 2003 to enhance bicycle and pedestrian
travel on Charleston Road and Arastradero Road, for school commuters
and all others who walk or cycle the Corridor. The Plan addressed
pedestrian crossing safety, bicycle travel safety, motor vehicle
speeding, more even and efficient motor vehicle traffic flow, and
Corridor streetscape.
Supplemental Information: The project will result in enhanced travel
safety, increased use of environmentally friendly travel alternatives,
reduced motor vehicle congestion, and enhanced aesthetics on the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. The Council approved the permanent
retention of the new lane configurations on Charleston in 2008. The
one-year trial of the new striping plan for Arastradero Road Corridor
was implemented in FY 2011. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project furthers one of the Council's Top 4 Priorities: Land Use and
Transportation Planning.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201292
PO-12001Curb and Gutter Repairs NEW
CURB AND GUTTER REPAIRS (PO-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-25, Policy L-20,
Policy L-22 and program T-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: none
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Exempt from CEQA under Sec-
tion 15301.
• Design Elements: City Arborist will be consulted
for tree root protection.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will repair curbs and gutters (C & G) that have
been uplifted by tree roots. The annual street maintenance project
does not address these locations unless street is scheduled for
reconstruction or a new asphalt overlay.The sidewalk replacement
project does not address C & G unless the gutter is physically
connected to the sidewalk. This CIP will address C & G repairs not
targeted by those projects. Initial funding will address a backlog of
approximately 290 locations.
Justification: The annual street maintenance project does not address
problems on small isolated sections of curb and gutter that are found
on streets with good road surfaces. Ponding related to C & G problems
is an eyesore and a health hazard. Standing water can be a breeding
ground for mosquitoes that may carry West Nile Virus. It can also
encourage algae growth that is slippery to bikes and pedestrians. In
neighborhoods w/frequent reconstruction, basement dewatering
operations can cause standing water.
Supplemental Information: Subsequent annual funding will be
required for annual maintenance requests.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $100,000 $1,100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $100,000 $1,100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 93
PL-00026Safe Routes to School
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (PL-00026)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2000-2016
• Percent Spent: 54.16%
• Managing Department: Planning and Commu-
nity Environment
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies T-34, T-40
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require Environ-
mental Assessments.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: Operating costs of this project will be
identified during design phase.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the City’s Safe Routes to School
programmatic elements including school commute planning and
encouragement activities and capital improvements along local and
neighborhood collector streets that may be impacted by school
commute activities. The project also funds minor roadway
improvements along suggested walking/biking routes to school
including roadway marking improvements and high-visibility signage
treatments.
Justification: Traffic calming is identified as a high priority in the
adopted Transportation Strategic Plan. Encouragement of walking and
bicycling to school helps to alleviate congestion of local streets and
provides health benefits for the community’s children.
Supplemental Information: Consultant and contract services will be
used to implement this project including consultant services for the
development of suggested walking/biking route to school maps, new
website development, and safe routes to school program
implementation. Contract help will be used to manage the consultant
contract and outreach activities to local schools.
A $528,000 grant was received in 2011 that requires a $132,000 local
match for the Safe Route to School programmatic elements.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $920,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 498,242
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $140,000
Construction Costs $297,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $557,000
Other
Total Budget Request $297,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $697,000
Revenues: $628,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,028,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Gas Tax Fund($500,000); Local
Agency Grant($528,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201294
PO-89003Sidewalk Repairs
SIDEWALK REPAIRS (PO-89003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2007-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 70%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Programs C-21, C-27
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will alleviate existing backlog in the sidewalk
repair program. FY 2012 sidewalk replacement will continue in District
13, bounded by Middlefield Rd., southern City limits, Transport St./
West Bayshore Rd. and Barron Creek. Work will also begin in District 14,
bounded by Middlefield Rd, southern City limits, Alma St, & E
Charleston. Curb ramps will be constructed at intersections & existing
curb ramps will be upgraded to comply with Americans Disabilities Act
(ADA).
Justification: This project provides an annual district-based
rehabilitation program that will alleviate the backlog of sidewalk
repairs and enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. Better sidewalk
conditions result in reduced potential for sidewalk-related injuries.
Additional funding is requested and is necessary to complete the
remaining sidewalk districts by 2016.
Supplemental Information: City in-house crews will perform "hot-
spot" sidewalk replacement throughout all areas of the City as well as
curb and gutter repair. The backlog of sidewalk replacements is
estimated to be complete in 2016. An amount of $50,000 will continue
to be allocated for high-pedestrian-use areas on an annual basis.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $689,980 $659,571 $654,322 $650,781 $644,877 $3,299,531
Other $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $325,000
Total Budget Request $754,980 $724,571 $719,322 $715,781 $709,877 $3,624,531
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 95
PO-11000Sign Reflectivity Upgrade
SIGN REFLECTIVITY UPGRADE (PO-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Categorically exempt from CEQA
under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: Overtime will need to be added to PW
Ops Division operating budget in future years to
test reflectivity.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project entails inventorying, upgrading and
maintaining all traffic signs owned by the City of Palo Alto in order to
comply with new federal requirements for sign reflectivity standards.
Justification: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
has passed regulations requiring new minimum reflectivity standards
for all signs. The City will phase in this project over a six-year period to
ensure compliance by the 2018 deadline.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $100,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201296
PO-05054Street Lights Improvements
STREET LIGHTS IMPROVEMENTS (PO-05054)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2005-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Program L-79
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces street light poles, pole foundations,
luminaires, and wiring as needed to maintain or improve street
lighting.
Justification: There are over 6,000 street lights in Palo Alto. The Electric
Fund maintains the poles, luminaires and circuits, and installs new
street lights as requested by the Public Works Department. Pole
replacements are required when existing poles fail or are accidentally
damaged. Luminaires are replaced to improve lighting levels and
safety. In some parts of Palo Alto, existing concrete or cast iron street
light poles are failing and are no longer serviceable. This project funds
their replacement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $130,000 $135,000 $140,000 $145,000 $150,000 $700,000
Other
Total Budget Request $130,000 $135,000 $140,000 $145,000 $150,000 $700,000
Revenues: $130,000 $135,000 $140,000 $145,000 $150,000 $700,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: General Fund($700,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 97
PE-86070Street Maintenance
STREET MAINTENANCE (PE-86070)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, T-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project will make reason-
able efforts to match existing pavement.
• Operating: This project will reduce street mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for annual resurfacing, slurry seal,
crack seal and reconstruction of various city streets recommended in
the City Auditor's report on street maintenance. The list of streets to be
included in this project will be prioritized and coordinated with Utilities
Department undergrounding projects.
Justification: The Pavement Maintenance Management System
(PMMS) has identified streets requiring maintenance. This program
systematically schedules the highest priority repairs. By providing a
systemized method of bi-annually rating streets for improvements and
a yearly maintenance program, the City addresses the need to provide
a functioning street system while reducing the maintenance backlog.
Supplemental Information: Revenues generated from the Street Cut
Fees, estimated to be $500,000 for FY 2012 through FY 2016, also
support the street maintenance program. This amount is included in
the transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Project Fund. Staff is
developing bid documents for the second phase of San Antonio
roadway and median reconstruction (from Middlefield Road to the
Highway 101 interchange) and has applied for a HSIP grant for
$900,000 which is subject to Caltrans approval. In FY 2011, a BAO in the
amount of $324,684 transferred street funding to the Storm Drain
project for curb and gutter work, wheel chair ramps and driveway work
along Channing Avenue. In FY 2012 appropriation for the annual Street
Resurfacing Capital Improvement Project will be reduced by an equal
amount since that portion of the Street Resurfacing project is already
covered in the Storm Drain project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Construction Costs $3,378,951 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $18,193,491
Other
Total Budget Request $3,428,951 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $18,443,491
Revenues: $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $6,500,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Street Improvement
Fund($6,500,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201298
PE-06011Street Median Improvements
STREET MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (PE-06011)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2006-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-25, N-17, N-19,T-
41, T-42, Program T-47
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require an envi-
ronmental review.
• Design Elements: This project may require the
review of Public Art Commission and ARB for gate-
ways.
• Operating: This project will require annual main-
tenance costs estimated at $4,000 per acre.
• Telecommunications: This project may require
initial installation of telephone line(s).
Description: This project renovates medians, planters, and islands by
repairing or installing irrigation systems, replacing meters and
backflow devices, signage and re-landscaping as necessary. The City
maintains approximately 388 medians, islands, gateways, and traffic
diverters throughout Palo Alto.
Justification: Most of the City's medians, planters, and islands have
fallen into disrepair due to water conservation, weather and climatic
conditions, aged systems, and landscape plants and materials which
have exceeded their useful life. Medians and islands are primarily
designed to regulate traffic and provide attractive landscapes and
welcoming gateways to the City. The provision of adequate
landscaping and irrigation reduces siltation and water runoff to City
streets.
Supplemental Information: These projects will be used for budget
planning. Once individual projects are developed and funding is
identified, the projects will be brought to Council on an individual
basis with individual scopes of work.
FY 2013 work schedule includes: 7 cul de sacs, Island Drive, and
Evergreen Park barriers.
FY 2014 work schedule includes: medians Page Mill/Oregon
Expressway
FY 2015: To be determined
FY 2016: To be determined
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 $624,000
Other
Total Budget Request $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 $156,000 $624,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 99
PO-11001Thermoplastic Marking and Striping
THERMOPLASTIC MARKING AND STRIPING
(PO-11001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 7.71%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy T-20
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Categorically exempt from CEQA
under Section 15301
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will use thermoplastic lane markings on
paved roadways to provide guidance and information to motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians. Thermoplastic takes the place of water-
based paint that has typically been used for street marking/striping.
Justification: Upgrading all street painting to thermoplastic will
improve/enhance roadway safety for motorists, pedestrians and
bicyclists as the reflectivity and wearability of the thermoplastic
outlasts that of paint by 3-5 years depending on traffic conditions. This
means less interruption of traffic flow as paint typically lasts only one
year. This also allows in-house staff to focus on new requests from
Planning's Transportation Division.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $300,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 23,139
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Street Improvement Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012100
PL-05030Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ITS UPGRADES (PL-05030)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Managing Department: Planning and Commu-
nity Environment
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-38
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: The operations and maintenance of
this project are funded by the Electric Fund.
• Telecommunications: This project will require
interconnection with broadband/fiber optic.
Description: This project funds the design and construction of traffic
signals, traffic signal communications networks, video surveillance
projects for transportation use, and maintenance of the City’s traffic
signal central system. Sample projects include the replacement of
traffic signal controllers/cabinets, video detection systems, and other
field equipment. This project also funds traffic signal projects that help
to reduce roadway congestion such as traffic signal retiming projects.
Justification: Traffic signal upgrades are essential to respond to help
maintain traffic safety and improve roadway operations.
Supplemental Information: Consultant and contract services may be
used to collect traffic data for traffic signal system projects and to help
implement traffic special projects such as adaptive/responsive signal
operations.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Construction Costs $150,000 $155,000 $160,000 $165,000 $170,000 $800,000
Other
Total Budget Request $200,000 $205,000 $210,000 $215,000 $220,000 $1,050,000
Revenues: $200,000 $205,000 $210,000 $215,000 $220,000 $1,050,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: General Fund($1,050,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 101
PL-12000Transportation and Parking Improvements NEW
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
(PL-12000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Planning and Commu-
nity Environment
• Comprehensive Plan: Goals T-4 and T-6
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may require an envi-
ronmental assessment.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project may require ongoing
maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for the implementation of
miscellaneous neighborhood traffic management improvements
including roadway geometric and signage enhancements and parking
improvements. These will help improve the quality of life for residents
and visitors that are outside of corridors where the Safe Routes to
Schools project may be more appropriate. Miscellaneous traffic studies
have been completed that may require traffic data collection needs to
properly design a project.
Justification: Traffic calming is identified as a high priority in the
adopted Transportation Strategic Plan.
Supplemental Information: On-call consultant and contractor
services will be provided to help the City implement improvements
recommended by staff in response to neighborhood improvement
requests.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $100,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $400,000
Construction Costs $650,000 $175,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,275,000
Other
Total Budget Request $750,000 $250,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $1,675,000
Revenues: $750,000 $250,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $1,675,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Gas Tax Fund($1,675,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012102
PO-12000Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck Replacement NEW
WILKIE WAY BRIDGE TILE DECK REPLACEMENT
(PO-12000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Goal T-3, Policy T-18
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: Additional funds will be needed in
Traffic Control operating budget for ongoing main-
tenance.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace all of the recycled plastic ECO
tiles on the Wilkie Way Bridge and walkway including any necessary
repairs to the wood decking underneath the tiles.
Justification: The Wilkie Way Bike Bridge is a connector across Adobe
Creek between Mtn View and Palo Alto for bicycle and pedestrian
traffic. When the bridge was repaired in 2000, the wood deck was
replaced and recycled plastic tile was applied to the bridge deck to
increase the deck's durability. Through time, the tiles have failed and
replacement tiles can no longer be found. As an interim solution, good
tiles along the outside edges of the path were moved to the center
part of the walkway.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 103
Parks and Open Space
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012104
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 105
PG-06003Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping
BENCHES, SIGNAGE, FENCING, WALKWAYS, AND
PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (PG-06003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2006-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 40%
• Percent Spent: 79.47%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, T-22,
Program C-19
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
or PRC review.
• Operating: This project will reduce future exten-
sive maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will restore and replace existing benches,
signage, fencing, walkways, and landscaping at various City facilities.
Justification: The amenities at these various sites are due for
replacement or upgrade based on their age and/or condition as
identified in field assessments report.
Supplemental Information: Replacement schedule is as follows:
Fiscal Year 2012- Pathway renovation in various parks, fence repair at
various park sites, repair and or replacement of existing park amenities
Fiscal Year 2013-2016 - To be determined
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $373,358
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 296,699
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012106
PE-06010City Parks Improvements
CITY PARKS IMPROVEMENTS (PE-06010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32,
Program C-19, Program N-17
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PAC,
PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
or PRC review.
• Operating: This project may increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project upgrades and/or renovates playground and
picnic areas, athletic fields, park benches, bleachers, fencing for
softball/soccer fields, irrigation systems, and signs in City parks. This
project also provides for lighting, repair, and improvements in parks;
and sign and pathway repairs at community centers, libraries and fire
stations. Funding focuses on repairing and replacing existing
infrastructure and does not entail full-scale/unlimited park renovation.
Justification: This project will address safety issues, maintenance
conditions at City parks and facilities, and legal and governmental
mandates. Playground and picnic areas are old and do not meet
accessibility needs. Additionally, lighting does not exist in most parks
and where it does, fixtures are old and replacement parts are not
available. Park and other facility pathways are in need of repair due to
their age and condition. Signage and fences may also need repair or
replacement.
Supplemental Information: Once individual projects are developed
and funding identified, projects will be brought to Council on an
individual basis with detailed scopes of work.
The projects are tentatively scheduled as follows:
Fiscal Year 2013 - Bowden and Greer Parks
Fiscal Year 2014 - Baylands Athletic Center Parking lot improvements
Fiscal Year 2015 - To be determined
Fiscal Year 2016 - To be determined
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $440,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,040,000
Other
Total Budget Request $440,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,040,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 107
PE-12012Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements NEW
ELEANOR PARDEE PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PE-12012)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32, C-
34, Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
or PRC review.
• Operating: This project may increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will provide upgrades and renovations for
safety and accessibility improvements at Eleanor Pardee Park. Funding
of this project will focus on pathway repair and turf replacement,
fencing, playground, benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains and
barbecue pits.
Justification: As park infrastructure ages, safety and compliance issues
need to be addressed. This project will ensure compliance and address
accesibility needs as well as safety issues.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $70,000 $70,000
Construction Costs $604,000 $604,000
Other
Total Budget Request $674,000 $674,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012108
OS-07000Foothills Park Road Improvements
FOOTHILLS PARK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (OS-07000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2006-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 70%
• Percent Spent: 66.67%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-25, C-26, C-
32, Program C-19
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require Site
and Design Review.
• Operating: Road maintenance associated with
this project is included in the operating budget.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project restores asphalt roads and roadside parking
areas within Foothills Park. Disintegrated asphalt will be removed and
replaced, base failures repaired, and road surfaces will be slurry sealed.
See Supplemental Information for details of areas that will be
improved.
Justification: The Foothills Park roads were constructed in 1964 when
the park was opened. Roads have only been patched in small areas.
There is a great need to improve the road condition for adequate
public access and emergency evacuation.
Supplemental Information: In FY 2009 the areas between Boronda
Lake and Vista Hill, including the parking areas around Vista Hill, were
resurfaced. In FY 2012, the areas between Vista Hill, back downhill to
the Foothills Park Interpretive Center, including the entrance to
Foothills Park, will be resurfaced.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $375,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 250,000
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $150,000 $150,000
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 109
PO-12003Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program NEW
FOOTHILLS WILDLAND FIRE MITIGATION PROGRAM
(PO-12003)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Program N3 and N78, Pol-
icy N49 and N53
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will reduce fire intensity near roads within
and outside the Foothills area to allow firefighting vehicles to pass and
ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety
zones, or safe locations out of the parks during a fire event. Projects
would be located along roads and driveways of varying width,
depending on whether the road is a major or secondary evacuation
route.
Justification: During a major fire event in the Foothills area there are
limited roads in which fire equipment and public would have access.
The projects would provide for clearing allowing a safe travel route.
Supplemental Information: The project would provide clearing as
follows:
a) 10 feet where flames are predicted to be less than eight feet in
length (generally in grassy locations and in oak woodlands), such as
along Wildhorse Valley in Foothills Park.
b) 30 feet from pavement edge along major evacuation routes that are
Page Mill Road, Los Trancos Road, Arastradero Road, Skyline Boulevard,
and the road from the Foothills Park Entry Gate to the Maintenance
Shop.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $200,000 $200,000
Total Budget Request $200,000 $200,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012110
PE-12001Golf Course Cart Path and Road NEW
GOLF COURSE CART PATH AND ROAD (PE-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Programs C-1 and C-19, C-
24, C-26
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
or PRC review.
• Operating: This project may increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: none
Description: This project would complete deferred cart path and
utility road work from a 1998 renovation project at the Palo Alto Golf
Course. Installation to include a total of 40,400 sq ft. of concrete cart
paths on golf course holes numbers 8, 9, 12, and 18 along with an
additional 10,000 sq. ft. of asphalt for utility roads. The existing paths
are base rock and stay wet from irrigation and precipitation almost the
entire year causing slick unsafe conditions.
Justification: In addition to being a hazard, water tends to puddle in
the low areas of these unpaved paths and roads attracting mosquitoes
and geese resulting in very unpleasant conditions for paying
customers. Improved conditions will enhance the customer experience
and improve revenue. The maintenance of these unpaved paths and
roads require weekly upkeep.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $292,000 $292,000
Other
Total Budget Request $292,000 $292,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 111
PG-12002Golf Course Tree Maintenance NEW
GOLF COURSE TREE MAINTENANCE (PG-12002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies N-14, N-16, and N-
18
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: This project will establish a tree
plan as recommended by the City's Arborist
• Operating: This project funds ongoing tree main-
tenance
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project establishes a tree plan at the Palo Alto Golf
Course as recommended by City Arborist. The maintenance and care
for these trees have been deferred for the last eight years. Many are in
need of trimming, nutrition, and care for disease and pests. The trees of
greatest concern are the large Eucalyptus, Caserinas, and Stone Pines.
After an evaluation, an Agronomic Plan will be put in place along with a
schedule that addresses the work needed to insure healthy conditions.
Justification: Many trees have become very dangerous due to disease,
pests, and lack of scheduled trimming. The top heavy trees need to be
trimmed as they tend to fall over during winter wind storms. This
project provides the means to plant and care for existing trees at the
Palo Alto Golf Course.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $75,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $225,000
Other
Total Budget Request $75,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $225,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012112
PG-11000Hopkins Park Improvements (formerly PE-07001)
HOPKINS PARK IMPROVEMENTS (FORMERLY PE-
07001) (PG-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32,
Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce structural and
systems maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will upgrade/renovate two mini parks on
Palo Alto Avenue along San Francisquito Creek, and the gateway area
at the intersection of Palo Alto Avenue and Middlefield Road. These
parks and greenways have outdated galvanized irrigation systems, and
park amenities are in need of improvement. The mini parks do not
provide for accessibility needs. Funding focuses on repairing existing
infrastructure and does not entail full-scale/unlimited park
renovations.
Justification: This project will enchance the quality and condition of
Hopkins Park and address accesibility needs with sidewalk ramping
and pathway repairs.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $95,000 $95,000
Other
Total Budget Request $95,000 $95,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 113
PO-12002LATP Site Development Preparation and Security Improvements NEW
LATP SITE DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION AND
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS (PO-12002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Managing Department: Public Works
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: CEQA will be completed as part
of this project.
• Design Elements: Consultant services will be
required.
• Operating: There will be an ongoing mainte-
nance need for the security fence around the prop-
erty.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) property contains a
former wastewater treatment facility on 6.5 acres of the site known as
Area B. This project will initiate the development permit process to
maximize usable land on Area B. Remediation of historical
contamination on the site, demolishing remaining structures, rough
grading, & filling low area including former sludge ponds will be
addressed. Mitigation of wetland impacts will be coordinated on site
following CEQA analysis.
Justification: As of 1/8/2008, Palo Alto fully owns the former LATP
property. The exact future use of Area B is not known, but the existing
US Army Corp of Engineers approved wetlands delineation map
expires on 8/4/2013. This CIP is needed to initiate the permit process to
maximize usable land on Area B.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $250,000 $250,000
Total Budget Request $250,000 $250,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012114
PG-12006Magical Bridge Playground NEW
MAGICAL BRIDGE PLAYGROUND (PG-12006)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-7, C-17, C-19, C-
26, C-27, and C-32.
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Parks &
Recreation
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
or PRC review.
• Operating: This project may increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The Friends of the Magical Bridge propose building a
new 18,000-sq ft playground on an undeveloped eastern corner of
Mitchell Park. The undeveloped area was originally designed for an
archery range. The playground would be specifically designed to
remove as many physical barriers as possible so that both able and
disabled kids can play together without limitations. Physically
challenged caregivers would also be better able to play and interact
with their children.
Justification: Because the Palo Alto Unified School District offers
nationally recognized programs for children with special needs, Palo
Alto is a magnet for families of special needs children. Palo Alto, with a
population of 1,500 special needs children between ages 4-16, is
proportionally one of the largest special needs communities on the
west coast. The unique location of this playground, adjoining Abilities
United, Achieve Center, and Challenger School, make this an ideal
location for this playground.
Supplemental Information: Funding for this project is to be in
partnership between City and Friends of the Magical Bridge. City to
contribute land and up to $300,000. Balance of project costs to be
raised by Friends of the Magical Bridge through donations and grants.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Revenues: $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Local Agency Grant($1,000,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 115
OS-09001Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair
OFF-ROAD PATHWAY RESURFACING AND REPAIR
(OS-09001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 62.21%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-25, C-26, C-
27, T-22, Programs C-19, T-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require Site
and Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The 9-mile off-road trail system in Palo Alto is 35 years old
and has not been maintained or repaired. Cracks, pot holes and base
failures in areas cause significant safety issues. This project removes
and replaces severely damaged sections of asphalt, repairs cracks and
base failures, and resurfaces worn or uneven surfaces of off-road
asphalt pathways and bicycle trails. Priority will be given to the repair of
the most uneven sections of pathway. The project does not create new
off-road trail.
Justification: This project is intended to maintain the existing system
of off-road pathways and trails throughout Palo Alto in order to extend
the useful life of pathway surfaces. On-road bike lanes are repaired as
part of street or sidewalk repairs. This project will ensure safe, even and
handicapped accessible surfaces for pedestrians, bikes and skaters.
Repair of uneven trail surfaces will greatly reduce accidents.
Supplemental Information: Staff will use surface assessment data
previously prepared by Public Works Engineering and inputs from the
public to prioritize repair or replacement projects.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $80,668
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 50,182
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012116
OS-00002Open Space Lakes and Ponds Maintenance
OPEN SPACE LAKES AND PONDS MAINTENANCE
(OS-00002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2000-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 70%
• Percent Spent: 98.59%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies N-1, N-8, Program
N-2
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC, PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project rehabilitates lakes and ponds in open space
nature preserves to protect wildlife habitat and recreational safety and
to meet State Division of Safety of Dams requirements. Work at
Boronda Lake at Foothills Park consists of the annual harvesting of
non-native pond weeds and cattails. Work at the Baylands Duck Pond
maintains the aerator for water quality.
Justification: Pond weeds and cattails must be regularly removed
from Boronda Lake to prevent non-native plants from displacing native
plants that are essential to the survival of fish and foraging animals.
This also will provide access for recreational fishing and boating safety.
The State Division of Safety of Dams mandates cattail removal to
maintain the Boronda Dam. The Baylands Duck Pond aeration system
maintains water quality for wildlife.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $364,471
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 359,332
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $60,000 $60,000 $170,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $60,000 $60,000 $170,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 117
OS-00001Open Space Trails and Amenities
OPEN SPACE TRAILS AND AMENITIES (OS-00001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2000-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 90%
• Percent Spent: 91.64%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, N-1, Pro-
grams C-19, C-27, T-25, T-26
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project restores trails, fences, picnic areas, and
campgrounds at Foothills Park, the Baylands, and the Pearson-
Arastradero Nature Preserves to ensure that facilities are safe,
accessible, and maintained for recreational uses. The project also
provides habitat protection by controlling where park users may hike,
bike, and assemble. These restoration projects are consistent with the
Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan and the Foothills Park
Trails Maintenance Plan.
Justification: Open Space trails require ongoing repair of natural
erosion, storm damage, and control of aggressive plants, such as thistle
and poison oak. Improvements to the trails within Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve move trails away from environmentally sensitive areas and
correct steeply sloped trails, thereby reducing erosion and providing
better access to park users with disabilities. Benches, tables,
footbridges and fences, which are at the end of their useful life, will
systematically be replaced.
Supplemental Information: Staff continues to aggressively pursue
grant funding opportunities for trail and open space amenity
improvements. In the past five years, $435,000 from grant programs
augmented the City's contribution to trails improvements.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,721,121
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 1,577,303
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $136,000 $150,000 $164,000 $175,000 $175,000 $800,000
Other
Total Budget Request $136,000 $150,000 $164,000 $175,000 $175,000 $800,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012118
PG-09002Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs
PARK AND OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY REPAIRS
(PG-09002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2008-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 58.32%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, Pro-
gram C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review. This project may require Site and
Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funds for the replacement or
extensive repair of playgrounds, play yard surfaces, wooden structures,
park amenities and play equipment in the event of storms, fire,
vandalism or structural failure.
Justification: This project ensures the quick replacement or repair of
damaged equipment or play structures for the convenience of the
public.
Supplemental Information: This proposed project responds to the
City Auditor's Park Audit recommendations.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $150,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 87,482
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
Other
Total Budget Request $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 119
PE-06007Park Restroom Installation
PARK RESTROOM INSTALLATION (PE-06007)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2009-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 12.17%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-26, C-27, C-32
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PTC,
PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is Categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review. This project may require Site and
Design Review.
• Operating: This project will require new mainte-
nance costs for each restroom. Annual costs to
maintain each restroom range from $20,000 to
$25,000.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for installation of restrooms at City
parks that currently do not have restroom facilities. The restrooms may
be prefabricated and each park installation will require a Park
Improvement Ordinance.
Justification: Many parks in the City have no restroom facilities within
the park boundaries. This project will provide for one installation
annually at parks with intensive recreational use.
Supplemental Information: Funding for this project will be provided
by the Development Park Impact Fees.
This project will be accomplished with current staff resources and may
delay or defer completion of other City Parks Improvement Projects.
This project supersedes planned projects as it will reduce health issues
in public parks and improve sanitary conditions in public parks.
In addition, contract maintenance costs will be increased to
accommodate new restroom installations. Depending on the type of
installation, costs to maintain a park restroom will be $20,000-$25,000
per year.
The next proposed location is Juana Briones Park. Juana Briones Park
and future restroom locations will be determined after conducting
public outreach.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $589,322
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 71,745
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $20,000 $20,000 $40,000
Construction Costs $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Other
Total Budget Request $220,000 $220,000 $440,000
Revenues: $220,000 $220,000 $440,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($440,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012120
PG-12005Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field NEW
RELOCATE POWER POLES FOR SOCCER FIELD
(PG-12005)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-26 and C-27
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Parks &
Recreation
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project involves relocating several power poles
located at 2000 Geng Road to allow space to install a practice soccer
field. This area was formerly used by PASCO for recycling and refuse
collection in the City. A new contractor now uses the property, but only
requires about half of the property for their operation. The other half
will revert to park land. Usage of the land as a soccer field requires
relocating several PG&E power poles.
Justification: There is a shortage of soccer fields in Palo Alto. Located
at the Baylands Athletic Center, this is an appropriate location for a
practice soccer field as the facility includes a parking lot.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 121
PE-08001Rinconada Park Improvements
RINCONADA PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PE-08001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32,
Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: Review by PAC and ARB may
be required.
• Operating: This project will reduce structural and
systems maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will provide upgrades to safety and
accessibility improvements at Rinconada Park including repairs to
pathways, picnic areas, small parking lot and playground surfacing.
This project will also replace picnic tables, trash receptacles, lighting,
drinking fountains and replace the seating area in the gazebo. This
project will remove: two shuffle board courts, horse shoe pit, and add a
new picnic table grove.
Justification: As park infrastructure ages, safety and compliance issues
need to be addressed. This project will ensure all compliance and
safety issues are rectified.
Consultant Services Scope: Consultant will provide necessary design
services through preparation of construction documents.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $110,000 $110,000
Construction Costs $1,150,000 $1,150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,260,000 $1,260,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012122
PE-12003Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design NEW
RINCONADA PARK MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN
(PE-12003)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Goal L-1. Policies L-10, L-
11, L-15, L-18, L-61, and L-74. Programs L-16, L-18,
and L-68.
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC and
PAC
• Art in Public Places: Yes
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
and/or PRC review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: Development of a Master Plan for Rinconada Park would
include a planning process led by a contracted Urban Planning or
Landscape Architecture firm to lead a committee of stakeholders to
address usage and facility needs. Also included would be a
transportation, parking, and traffic study to assess exiting and future
needs. The study would also provide a concept plan and guidelines for
landscaping, way finding systems, pedestrian roadway crossings and
design.
Justification: Rinconada Park serves Palo Alto as a regional park. It
highly visited and adjacent to valued facilities such as the Lucie Stern
Community Center and Theatre, Children’s Theatre, Children’s Library,
Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Pool, tennis courts, Fire Station 3,
Main Library, Art Center, and Walter Hayes Elementary School. It is
essential for a master plan be developed incorporating usage with
such facilities to ensure the park continues to thrive and serve the
community.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $150,000 $150,000
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 123
PG-12004Sarah Wallis Park Improvements NEW
SARAH WALLIS PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PG-12004)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Parks &
Recreation
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: This project may require PRC
review.
• Operating: Replacement of outdated irrigation
systems and controls will reduce water costs and
thereby maintenance expenses by approximately
$900 per year.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will provide upgrades and renovations for
safety and accessibility improvements at Sarah Wallis Park. Funding for
this project will focus on pathway repair, turf replacement, irrigation,
benches, and ADA accessibility.
Justification: As park infrastructure ages, safety and compliance issues
need to be addressed. This project will ensure compliance and address
accessibility needs as wall as safety issues.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $65,000 $65,000
Other
Total Budget Request $65,000 $65,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012124
PG-11003Scott Park Improvements (formerly PE-11004)
SCOTT P ARK I MPROVEMENTS (FORMERLY PE-11004)
(PG-11003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32,
Program C-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may require PRC
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce structural and
system maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will provide necessary upgrades to the play
equipment and play area surfacing in Scott Park. Funding focuses on
repairing existing infrastructure and does not entail full-scale/
unlimited park renovation.
Justification: The existing play equipment and play area surfacing at
Scott Park are in need of replacement in order to comply with current
safety and accessibility standards.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 125
PG-12001Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Netting NEW
STANFORD/PALO ALTO PLAYING FIELDS NETTING
(PG-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-9
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project would add additional netting to prevent
soccer balls from going over the fence into the parking lot of the
adjacent property at 650 Page Mill Road. Although there is netting
behind the soccer goal areas, there is still a gap of approximately 160
feet without netting in the area between the two soccer fields. This
area serves as a warm up and practice area and is heavily used.
Justification: The adjacent property manager has complained of
repeated issues with soccer balls coming over the existing fence and
damaging vehicles. There are also safety concerns with children
running through the parking lot searching for soccer balls that have
gone over the fence. Landscaping and irrigation have also been
damaged as soccer players walk through landscaped areas of the
parking lot to retrieve soccer balls.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012126
PE-14000Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf Replacement
STANFORD/PALO ALTO SOCCER TURF
REPLACEMENT (PE-14000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Goal C-4, Policy C-22, Pol-
icy C-24, Program C-19, and Policy C-26.
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce structural and
systems maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace the synthetic turf at the Stanford/
Palo Alto Playing Fields. The complex is Palo Alto's first synthetic turf
field and accommodates year round play with lighting. Since the
complex was built in 2006, it has been in high demand and is used by
both youth and adult leagues as well as walk on play.
Justification: The turf has a typical lifespan of 8 years with a fiber wear
decrease in pile height of 8% per year. With higher than typical usage,
there has been 8-10% wear. Thus, in order to ensure safe playing
conditions, two soccer fields with the most usage had been identified
to have its turf replaced by 2014; after 8 years of use.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $100,000 $100,000
Construction Costs $625,000 $625,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $625,000 $725,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 127
PG-06001Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing
TENNIS AND BASKETBALL COURT RESURFACING
(PG-06001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Percent Spent: 74.67%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, Pro-
gram C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce long-term
infrastructure costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project repairs and resurfaces the tennis and
basketball courts in various Palo Alto parks.
Justification: This project provides resurfacing and repair of various
tennis and basketball courts at City and sites. Resurfacing of courts will
enhance the safety, quality, and condition of these athletic facilities.
Supplemental Information: Work schedule is as follows:
FY 2011 - Resurfacing of Cubberley tennis courts
FY 2012 - Terman Park tennis courts, various basketball courts
FY 2013 -Resurfacing of Mitchell Park tennis courts (1-7)
FY 2014 - Resurfacing of Hoover Park tennis courts, Peers Park tennis
courts and Weisshaar Park tennis courts
FY2015-Greer, Peers, Boulware, Briones, and Terman basketball courts
FY 2016 - Resurfacing of Rinconada courts (1-9)
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $498,544
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 372,280
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000
Total Budget Request $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012128
PE-12002Tree Wells - University Ave. Irrigation Alternatives NEW
TREE WELLS - UNIVERSITY AVE. IRRIGATION
ALTERNATIVES (PE-12002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies L-22, L-23, and N-
14. Programs L-16, L-21, and N-17.
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PRC,
PAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: The project may require PAC
and/or ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: Attractive trees and landscaping along University Avenue
is an important component of having an economically viable
downtown area. The irrigation system for the planting areas was
originally installed in 1972. The age of the irrigation system and tree
root intrusion have caused the irrigation pipes to fail in both the tree
wells and the adjacent road ways. This project will look at alternatives
for these planting areas including total replacement of the existing
system.
Justification: No subsurface improvements have been made and the
system suffers from breaks and leaks at an ever increasing rate. There
were approximately five breaks in 2010, which required tearing up
parts of the street and sidewalk to gain access to the broken pipes. The
original intent of the irrigation system was to establish the trees over a
period of 3 to 4 years and then be abandoned. However, they are still in
use today as a watering system for the planting areas.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 129
PE-10002Ventura Community Center and Park
VENTURA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK
(PE-10002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Timeline: FY 2009-2012
• Percent Spent: 3.86%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-24, C-26, C-32,
Program C-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301
• Design Elements: This project may require ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will increase mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project upgrades and/or renovates the playground
and picnic area, athletic field and irrigation system. The irrigation
system will include a centralized weather based program which results
in water savings of 15-25% compared to the existing system. This
project will also replace asphalt walkways around the basketball courts.
Justification: The playground is not compliant with current safety and
accessibility regulations and is required by law to be upgraded. The
field and irrigation system accommodates the use of the community
center, general park users and programmed field user groups and is in
poor condition.
Supplemental Information: Originally the design portion of the
project was to been done by in-house staff, however due to staff
reduction in FY 2011 it will be necessary to hire an outside firm to
complete the design for this project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $200,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 7,712
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $25,000 $25,000
Other
Total Budget Request $25,000 $25,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012130
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 131
Miscellaneous
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012132
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 133
FD-12000ALS EKG Monitor Replacement NEW
ALS EKG MONITOR REPLACEMENT (FD-12000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2014
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Fire Department
• Comprehensive Plan: Goal C-1
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: 12-Lead EKG monitors must
have data transmission capabilities as per upcom-
ing Santa Clara County Emergency Medical Services
mandate.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: Possible need to pay
monthly air card usage fee for each monitor
depending on contract with selected vendor.
Description: Fire department purchase of eighteen Advanced Life
Support (ALS) EKG monitors over a 3-year period. They will replace
current monitors located on Fire vehicles to meet upcoming
equipment changes mandated by the Santa Clara County Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) Agency.
Justification: Current monitors will become obsolete due to lack of 12-
Lead transmission capability for acute heart attack protocol. Santa
Clara County EMS will mandate transmission capability in
approximately 3 years.
Consultant Services Scope: None
Supplemental Information: Current ALS EKG monitors were
purchased over a 3 year period starting in 2005. The first shipment will
be 6 years of age in 2012. Warranties for current monitors can not be
renewed after 8 years. Santa Clara County EMS is moving towards
requiring 12-Lead transmission capability in the current cardiac
program and current monitors do not have that capability. Each
monitor costs approximately $30,000. This includes a 5-year
maintenance agreement with annual callibration. Total cost estimate
for 18 replacement monitors is $540,000 or $180,000 per year over a 3-
year period. The Fire Dept is currently working with Stanford Hospital
to search for possible funding options for this project. Some vendors
are able to utilize grant funds to reduce the price of their monitors. The
replaced monitors have a resale value of approximately $6,000 each.
Total revenue estimate for resale of old monitors is $108,000.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $540,000
Total Budget Request $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $540,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:General Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012134
AC-86017Art in Public Places
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AC-86017)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Programs B-3, L-19, L-28, L-
70, L-72, T-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA.
• Design Elements: Location and installation of
Public Art may be subject to review by PAC.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project supports innovative programs for both
interior and exterior public spaces by commissioning or purchasing
works by living artists. In addition, funds may be used to obtain
professional consultants to assist in selecting artists and works;
preserve meritorious works; and defray capital expenses. This project is
exclusively for the purchase and installation of public art.
Justification: This project places art in public buildings or parklands
and other sites open to frequent public view. It is expected that a sense
of community pride and ownership in the City of Palo Alto will be the
result of installing Art in Public Places. Art in Public Places preserves the
long-term viability of the built environment, and helps set a standard
for aesthetic variety in the community.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Other
Total Budget Request $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Revenues: $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: General Fund($250,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 135
LB-11000Furniture and Technology for Library Measure N Projects
FURNITURE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR LIBRARY
MEASURE N PROJECTS (LB-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2012-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: C-14
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will incur ongoing annual
maintenance and replacement costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for the purchase of new furniture,
equipment and technology for the Measure N bond projects at the
new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the expanded and
renovated Main Library and renovated Downtown Library.
Justification: In 2008, the community passed Bond Measure N,
thereby authorizing the construction or renovation of three library
branches. By law, general obligation bond funds cannot be used to
purchase non-capital items for the facilities. This project is needed to
accept gifts from the Palo Alto Library Foundation or other
organizations to fund the purchase of essential furniture, equipment
and technology.
Supplemental Information: First year funding to purchase all needed
furniture, equipment and technology for the Downtown Library
renovation was provided by the Palo Alto Library Foundation. Future
year funding will be provided by gifts from the Foundation or other
donors and, if needed, supplemented by library development impact
fees and community centers development impact fees.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $3,125,000 $1,600,000 $4,725,000
Other
Total Budget Request $3,125,000 $1,600,000 $4,725,000
Revenues: $3,125,000 $1,600,000 $4,725,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Local Agency Grant($4,725,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012136
AS-10000Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects
SALARIES AND BENEFITS - GENERAL FUND CIP
PROJECTS (AS-10000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2010-2016
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Not Applicable
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Not
Applicable
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Not Applicable
• Design Elements: Not Applicable
• Operating: Not Applicable
• Telecommunications: Not Applicable
Description: This project is a placeholder for the estimated salaries
and benefit costs of City staff assigned to manage General Fund CIP
projects. As part of the year-end process, this amount will be allocated
to all General Fund CIP projects that are charged with the actual costs
of salaries and benefits. At the end of each fiscal year, any unused
balance will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve.
Justification: Salaries and benefits costs of City staff assigned to
manage CIP projects are associated costs in the completion of CIP
projects. As such, these costs are capitalized and are added to the total
costs of a project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $3,384,161 $3,553,369 $3,731,037 $3,917,589 $4,113,468 $18,699,624
Total Budget Request $3,384,161 $3,553,369 $3,731,037 $3,917,589 $4,113,468 $18,699,624
Revenues: $1,253,510 $1,291,115 $1,329,849 $1,353,378 $1,393,979 $6,621,831
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: General Fund($6,621,831)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 137
ENTERPRISE FUND PROJECTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012138
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 139
Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
he Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City's Enterprise Funds remains a critical
component of the infrastructure commitment made to our citizen-customers. Each utility
operates as a separate business entity with the cost of infrastructure rehabilitation as a normal
business expense. Generally, the funds use a “pay-as-you-go” approach to both operating and
capital costs. The rates charged to customers for utility services include the cost of capital work. Staff
believes that the investment the City makes today will pay dividends to the citizens of Palo Alto now
and in the future.
The Fiscal Year 2012 Enterprise CIP expense is $34.4 million, $3.0 million less compared to the prior
year. A summary of new projects being added is presented in subsequent pages.
The Electric, Water, Gas, Fiber Optics and Wastewater Collection Funds continue to fund scheduled
projects and to accelerate projects where possible. The Accelerated Infrastructure Program, started in
1990, includes projects with a major focus on maintaining and improving the reliability of the system.
Work continues to replace structurally deficient water, gas, and sewer mains, convert the primary
electric distribution system from 4kV lines to 12kV, install new water pumps in critical areas, and
upgrade and improve substations. There are also ongoing efforts to evaluate service reliability needs
and make any needed improvements. In addition to these five funds, the Wastewater Treatment Fund,
the Refuse Fund, and the Storm Drainage Fund stand behind their commitments to provide the
highest level of customer service.
As the utility infrastructure ages, it becomes necessary to maintain and replace the current system.
There are several Enterprise CIPs that replace or upgrade the existing infrastructure to maintain
reliability.
ELECTRIC FUND
The Electric Fund has a capital expense of $8.7 million in Fiscal Year 2012, $1.4 million less than the
prior year. The average annual expenditures in the five-year plan ( FY 2012-2016), however, is $11.5
million.
After reimbursements from other Enterprise funds and customers, the net amount of Electric CIP
expense is $7.0 million. The Electric Fund Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve will provide
funding for these projects. The page of individual CIP projects identifies each project’s funding
source.
Electric Fund CIPs include:
• Rebuilding the electric system in underground districts at Greenhouse Condo Area
• Undergrounding District 46 (Charleston/El Camino Real ) and District 47 (bounded by
Middlefield, Homer, Webster and Addison Ave)
• Upgrading the SCADA systems and improvements to the Utility Control Center
• Improving system including cable replacements and deteriorated wood pole replacements
T
Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012140
• Converting Street Lights System, by piloting light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting technology in
the community, with a preliminary plan to fully deploy the technology over the next five years
• Converting primary electric distribution system from 4 kV to 12 kV
FIBER OPTICS FUND
The Fiber Optics Fund has two CIP projects in Fiscal Year 2012 totaling $500,000; after customer
reimbursements of $200,000, the net cost to the Fiber Optics Fund is $300,000. This amount is $100,000
greater than the prior year’s expense with the increase due to the expansion of the fiber optic network.
The two projects under the Fiber Optics Fund are as follows:
• Fiber Optic Network System Improvement Project - this project extends the "dark" fiber optic network
around Palo Alto which, in turn, is leased to parties providing telecommunication services to citizens
and businesses in Palo Alto. Included in the project are increases in system capacity, development of
fiber sub-rings, and general improvements to the fiber system
• Fiber Optic Customer Connections Project - this project installs fiber optic infrastructure for new
service connections. Customers are billed for the interconnection and the ongoing costs of ownership.
This project promotes the formation of a competitive market for telecommunications in Palo Alto,
accelerating the pace at which high-quality, low-cost advanced telecommunications services are
delivered to residents and businesses
GAS FUND
Total Fiscal Year 2012 Gas Fund CIP expenditures are $7.8 million, a decrease of $0.5 million from Fiscal Year
2011. Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2012 Gas Fund budget are as follows:
• Gas Main Replacements (GMR) Project 20 - construction stage. Trenchless main and service
installation technology will be used to the extent possible to reduce the impacts on City streets
• Gas Main Replacements (GMR) Project 22 - gas station rebuilding projects are in planning and design
stages
• System improvements including new mains, services, valves, regulators, meters and accessories
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
Total Fiscal Year 2012 CIP expense in the Wastewater Collection (WWC) Fund is $4.3 million; approximately
equal to the prior year budget.
The WWC Fund implements the 2004 Collection System Master Plan Update which identified needed
upgrades and improvements in the collection system.
The capital projects included in Fiscal Year 2012 will be developed from system-wide video documentation of
sewer system structural deficiencies by WWC17, the ICOMMM maintenance and PicAx video software
programs. The WWC system improvements will consist of main replacements, pipebursting and slip-lining,
Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 141
and cast-in-place lining. Trenchless rehabilitation methods will be used when practical to reduce the impact
on City streets.
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2012 CIP budget are as follows:
• Upgrades and improvements in the collection system
• WWC System Rehab/Aug Project 24 in construction stage
• WWC System Rehab/Aug Project 25 in design stage
• Sewer lateral and manhole rehabilitation/replacements - will replace defective sewer laterals, cleanouts,
and perform manhole rehabilitation/replacements
WATER FUND
The Water Fund CIP primarily involves the Water Main Replacement (WMR) projects, construction of a new
pump at Mayfield Pump Station, and other projects focused on reliability. The project at the Mayfield Pump
Station is constructed to meet the California Department of Health Services recommendations to ensure an
adequate emergency water supply.
Fiscal Year 2012 CIP expense in the Water Fund is $4.9 million, a decrease of $4.0 million when compared to
the prior year. This decrease is primarily due to the Emergency Water Supply Project which received $3.5
million more funding in FY 2011.
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2012 CIP budget are as follows:
• Each year, the Water Fund replaces 15,800 feet per year of water main. The projects pertaining to this
replacement include:
- Water Main Replacement Project 23 and 24 - in construction stage
- Water Main Replacement Project 25 and 26 - in design stage
• Seismic Water System Upgrades - this project provides structural reinforcement for the Monte Bello,
Corte Madera, Park, Boronda and Dahl reservoirs to improve earthquake resistance in compliance with
the American Society of Civil Engineers seismic codes
• Water service hydrant replacement - this project upgrades water hydrants consistent with fire
protection policy
• Water Recycling Facilities - this project would expand the existing recycled water delivery system and
provide another supply source to the Stanford Park area of the City. The success of this project depends
on the ability of the Utilities Department to find a grant or other financing sources
REFUSE FUND
The Refuse Fund has one project in Fiscal Year 2012 in the amount of $6.1 million. This project will close the
last remaining open area at the landfill. The cost estimate indicated that $6.7 million will be needed to cap
the remaining 51 acres of the landfill area. $0.6 million was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2011; the remaining
Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012142
balance of $6.1 million is being appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012. This project will be funded from the cash
accumulated in the Refuse Fund Reserve to pay for the landfill closure liability.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
The Wastewater Treatment Fund has not requested funding for capital projects in Fiscal Year 2012. In the
prior year, $2.5 million was appropriated for two projects.
The City of Palo Alto is the owner and administrator of the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The other partner agencies (City of Mountain View and Los Altos) reimburse the City for their share of
the cost of CIP projects.
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Fiscal Year 2012 CIP expense in the Storm Drainage Fund is $2.2 million, an increase of $0.7 million when
compared to the prior year. Projects to be funded in Fiscal Year 2012 include:
• Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain improvements (Phase 2)
• High-priority storm drain system repairs
The CIP projects have been reviewed by the Council-appointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee. The
Committee has noted that the Fund will likely experience capital project funding shortfalls in the coming
years. The shortfalls are a result of the discrepancy between the high construction costs paid for the San
Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station (which was bid when costs were peaking in 2007) and the
modest Storm Drainage Fee increases allowed by the ballot measure (based on annual increases in the local
Consumer Price Index [CPI] or 6 percent, whichever is less). Since the construction cost for the Pump
Station Project exceeded its budget, funds were diverted from other Storm Drainage Fund CIPs to pay for it.
Since subsequent local CPI increases have only been 2-4 percent per year (Fiscal Year 2010 was zero percent),
there will likely be insufficient funds to complete the original 12-year Capital Improvement Program outlined
in the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee have developed strategies to maximize the use of available
funds, including focusing on completion of the highest priority projects and incrementally reducing the scope
of some projects in order to free up funds for other projects. As a result of the joint deliberations by staff and
the Committee, the Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station project remain unfunded
at this time, and the recently completed Alma Street Storm Drain Improvements project was downsized. Staff
and the Committee have collaborated on an idea to utilize monies from the Innovative Storm Drain Fund (an
annual allocation that has been used primarily to fund the Storm Drain Rebate Program) to pay for a
downsized Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements project that incorporates permeable
pavement, rain gardens, and a cistern as drainage system elements.
.
Enterprise Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 143
NEW PROJECTS
The new projects that are added to the Adopted 2011-15 five-year CIP plan in the Enterprise Funds include
the following:
CIP NO. Project Title
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement
Gas Fund
GS-16000 GMR Project 26
Water Fund
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30
Wastewater
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 29
WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting Machine
2012-2016 CIP
List of New Projects
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Electric Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012144
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 145
Electric Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012146
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
0
1
2
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
14
7
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
M
a
p
-.0 ..-
O s
C"I ~ ..
OJ) o .. ~
-~
0:::: .'.::
..... Q. u ~
w U
..... w
c z w
(!) w ~
~
~ c
~
~
~
§ § ~ ~ §
~ ~ § § ~
~ ~~~§~
=> -=-~=-=-
@
!1
~
fjfjfjfjfjfj mm
[
~~ fBi
n
" " "
~
Uiii
mmm
~ ~ ~ ~ ,., ~ ~ ,..
~~~§ §~~
:~~~g 0·" ~"~2~i:~8~
~~ai;~~~
.6~'::'.~;L8
~g~~g~g88
~:(" ilj~ -:( if: S
~d,,[i~3"3 ::"' ~ ~t;; ~ J:il"
m ~~~::!O; II :;;::ilSl:tl<!!O::U:~~~ II ;;;:;:13:: I u1:l01Hl~t;rn;
o
'" '" ~
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012148
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 149
EL-14000Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12 kV Conversion
COLERIDGE/COWPER/TENNYSON 4/12 KV
CONVERSION (EL-14000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will have pad-
mounted equipment screened. This project may be
subject to ARB review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities and improve the
efficiency of the system by reducing system losses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The project will convert the primary electric distribution
system in the Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson area from 4 kV to 12 kV.
Justification: The existing 4kV distribution system serves 120
customers. Due to prior 4/12 kV conversions in adjacent areas, this area
needs to be served at 12 kV so that adequate circuit tie capability can
be restored. In addition, the area now requires a primary neutral
conductor for proper operation. The existing neutral disconnect
switches are in old and deteriorated condition and need replacement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $120,000 $400,000 $520,000
Other
Total Budget Request $120,000 $400,000 $520,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012150
EL-89031Communications System Improvements
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
(EL-89031)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: This project supports city
telephone links and WAN.
Description: This project installs copper wire cable systems, high
frequency coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, and related equipment to
provide communications services for traffic signal coordination,
telephone links, computer data transmission and the Electric
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
Justification: Installation of communication lines is essential for the
provision of City services. The broadband system is the network
connecting the major Local Area Networks (LAN) at the MSC, Water
Quality Control Plant and City Hall into a Wide Area Network (WAN).
The broadband system also provides communication between the
various SCADA systems and their field components.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000 $145,000 $655,000
Other
Total Budget Request $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000 $145,000 $655,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 151
EL-13000Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV Tie
EDGEWOOD / WILDWOOD 4 KV TIE (EL-13000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will construct a three-phase circuit tie in the
Edgewood/Wildwood area between the HO-3 and HO-7 feeders.
Justification: When the East Meadow 4 kV feeders are converted to 12
kV, the 4 kV back-up circuit ties from East Meadow to Hopkins
substations will be eliminated. In order to maintain reliable service in
the event of a feeder outage at Hopkins substation, this project will
construct a tie between the HO-3 and HO-7 feeders.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $300,000 $100,000 $750,000 $1,150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $300,000 $100,000 $750,000 $1,150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012152
EL-89028Electric Customer Connections
ELECTRIC CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS (EL-89028)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project performs various functions, including
installation of services, transformers and meters for new customers;
upgrading of existing services; temporary service connections; and
overhead and underground extensions for new or existing customers.
Justification: The project provides funding for the connection of new
customers and the upgrading of existing services. These are critical
functions for providing electrical service to the City's customers.
During a typical year, over 200 electric services are installed or
upgraded in the City.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represent
reimbursements from customers, telephone, and CATV companies.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $2,200,000 $2,300,000 $2,400,000 $11,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $2,200,000 $2,300,000 $2,400,000 $11,000,000
Revenues: $850,000 $900,000 $925,000 $950,000 $1,000,000 $4,625,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($4,625,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 153
EL-98003Electric System Improvements
ELECTRIC SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (EL-98003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funding as needed to improve the
electric distribution system. Typical activities include: increasing
system capacity for load growth, replacing deteriorated capital
facilities, reconfiguring/adding to the system to improve service
reliability, repairing and replacing storm damaged equipment and
making general improvements to the system.
Justification: Electric system service reliability and adequate system
capacity are critical to providing a high level of service to customers in
Palo Alto. When service interruptions occur, customers may experience
significant economic losses. City must continuously evaluate service
reliability needs and make improvements to the system to maintain
top-level service to City customers.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represents
reimbursements from the telephone company of $200,000.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,200,000 $2,300,000 $2,400,000 $2,450,000 $2,500,000 $10,850,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,200,000 $2,300,000 $2,400,000 $2,450,000 $2,500,000 $10,850,000
Revenues: $145,000 $150,000 $160,000 $170,000 $180,000 $805,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($805,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012154
EL-02011Electric Utility GIS
ELECTRIC UTILITY GIS (EL-02011)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2008-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 20%
• Percent Spent: 63.37%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-10
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This is not a project under CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will require ongoing
annual maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will improve the ability of Palo Alto’s utilities
to use the citywide Geographical Information System (GIS). The
primary emphasis will be to provide a compatible-user interface and
estimating software, to edit and update data which will reside in the
citywide GIS. The project shall involve the migration of the existing
Electric, Water, Gas, Wastewater and Fiber networks to a unified
mapping solution and allow the Utility to leverage the investment in
current software applications.
Justification: GIS has grown from being a set of special purpose
computer applications to being an information tool that serves all
segments of the City. Initially used only by a few highly skilled
technicians and engineers, GIS applications are now standard on every
new personal computer that the city deploys. Applications have been
developed which make GIS information accessible to hundreds of
users, which has greatly increased the value of the system.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $890,063
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 564,024
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 155
EL-12002Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement NEW
HANOVER 22 - TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT
(EL-12002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-79; Program L-81,
Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt form CEQA under section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project will enhance the reliabil-
ity of Hanover Substation and reduce operating
expenses involved with equipment maintenance.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace the Hanover Substation 60/12kV,
20MVA transformer, XF-22, with a new 60/12kV, 28MVA transformer.
The new transformer will be installed in the same location as the
existing transformer.
Justification: The Hanover XF-22 transformer serves 45 customers in
the Stanford Research Park including EPRI, Xerox, SAP, Tesla Motors,
Hewlett Packard and the VA Hospital. The existing transformer was
installed in 1976 and dissolved gas analysis testing indicates that this
transformer is approaching the end of its useful life. The load tap
changer has a history of failures and requires a major rebuild every 2 to
3 years at a cost of approximately $50,000.
Supplemental Information: The existing transformer has a rated
capacity of 20 MVA which is insufficient to carry the peak load of the
entire switchgear lineup if the adjacent 28 MVA XF-23 transformer fails.
This project will replace the existing transformer with a new 28 MVA 60-
12kV transformer to provide full transformer backup capability in the
event of the loss of XF-23.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012156
EL-09002Middlefield / Colorado 4/12 kV Conversion
MIDDLEFIELD / COLORADO 4/12 KV CONVERSION
(EL-09002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 6.63%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will convert the primary electric distribution
system in the Middlefield/Colorado area from 4 kV to 12 kV.
Justification: The existing 4 kV distribution system serves 150
customers and utilizes a primary neutral conductor for proper
operation. Conversion to 12 kV will allow removal of this conductor
and associated equipment and will reduce the amount of equipment
and connectors to maintain, improving service reliability. The
associated substation equipment serving this area is approximately 50
years old. This project will allow removal of old equipment nearing the
end of its design life.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $170,830
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 11,321
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 157
EL-11007Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area
REBUILD GREENHOUSE CONDO AREA (EL-11007)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will rebuild and replace the underground
electric system in the Greenhouse Condo area on San Antonio Road.
Work will include the replacement of deteriorated electrical cable,
transformers, switches and enclosures. Installation of new equipment
will bring the electrical system up to current construction standards.
Justification: The underground electric distribution system in the
Greenhouse Condo area was installed in 1976. Although typical cable
and equipment expected life is 30 years when conditions are ideal, due
to most of the equipment and cables operating in standing water
during winter, its useful service life has been compromised and failures
could begin to occur prematurely. The water reduces the life of the
equipment and connections and requires that the system be rebuilt.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $150,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $350,000 $350,000
Other
Total Budget Request $350,000 $350,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012158
EL-12000Rebuild UG District 12
REBUILD UG DISTRICT 12 (EL-12000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will rebuild and replace the underground
electric system in UG District 12. The area includes Middlefield
between Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road. Work will include
the replacement of deteriorated electrical cable, transformers, switches
and enclosures. Installation of new equipment will bring the electrical
system up to current construction standards.
Justification: The underground electric distribution system in the UG
District 12 was installed in 1971. Although typical cable and equipment
expected life is 30 years when conditions are ideal, due to most of the
equipment and cables operating in standing water during winter, its
useful service life has been compromised and failures could begin to
occur prematurely. The water reduces the life of the equipment and
connections and requires that the system be rebuilt.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $80,000 $700,000 $300,000 $1,080,000
Other
Total Budget Request $80,000 $700,000 $300,000 $1,080,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 159
EL-11003Rebuild UG District 15
REBUILD UG DISTRICT 15 (EL-11003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will rebuild and replace the underground
electric system in UG District 15. The area is bounded by Los Palos,
Glenbrook, Pomona, and Arastradero. Work will include the
replacement of deteriorated electrical cable, transformers and
enclosures. Installation of new equipment will bring the electrical
system up to current construction standards.
Justification: The underground system serving UG District 15 was
installed in 1973, and cables and equipment in the area have exceeded
their expected life of 30 years. In addition, most of the equipment and
cables were installed in subsurface enclosures that have standing
water in them in the winter. The water reduces the life of the
equipment and electrical connections and requires that rebuilding be
performed on the facilities.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $80,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $400,000 $270,000 $670,000
Other
Total Budget Request $400,000 $270,000 $670,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012160
EL-13003Rebuild UG District 16
REBUILD UG DISTRICT 16 (EL-13003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will rebuild and replace the underground
electric system in UG District 16. The area is located along Louis Road
between Greer Street and Loma Verde Avenue. Work will include the
replacement of deteriorated electrical cable, transformers and
enclosures. Installation of new equipment will bring the electrical
system up to current construction standards.
Justification: The underground system serving UG District 16 was
installed in 1974, and cables and equipment in the area have exceeded
their expected life of 30 years. In addition, most of the equipment and
cables were installed in subsurface enclosures that have standing
water in them in the winter. The water reduces the life of the
equipment and electrical connections and requires that rebuilding be
performed on the facilities.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $300,000 $300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $300,000 $300,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 161
EL-14002Rebuild UG District 20
REBUILD UG DISTRICT 20 (EL-14002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Program L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will rebuild and replace the underground
electric system in UG District 20. The area is located along Louis Road
between Greer Street and Loma Verde Avenue. Work will include the
replacement of deteriorated electrical cable, transformers and
enclosures. Installation of new equipment will bring the electrical
system up to current construction standards.
Justification: The underground system serving UG District 20 was
installed in 1979, and cables and equipment in the area have exceeded
their expected life of 30 years. In addition, most of the equipment and
cables were installed in subsurface enclosures that have standing
water in them in the winter. The water reduces the life of the
equipment and electrical connections and requires that rebuilding be
performed on the facilities.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012162
EL-11015Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmission System
RECONDUCTOR 60KV OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM (EL-11015)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.33%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-79
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project will enhance the reliabil-
ity to Quarry Substation and will reduce operating
expenses involved in switching and maitaining
additional feeders from other stations to provide
service in the downtown and Stanford area.
Description: This project will reconductor existing 556 AL 60kV
transmission lines with 477 ACCR (Aluminum Conductor Composite
Reinforced) conductor to prevent overloads in the event of single
contingency line outages. The ACCR has an emergency rating of over
1200 amps compared with 650 amps for the existing 556 AL conductor
and can be strung on existing poles designed for 556 AL conductor.
The projects will be completed in 4 phases as outlined in the
supplemental information.
Justification: Project Justification: Using Summer 2009 actual loads,
an outage of the PB-PBS 60kV line will result in an emergency load of
650 amps on the HO-QR 60kV line. This load is right at the thermal limit
of 556 AL conductor (650 amps). As new loads are added at Stanford
Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center, the Summer 2010
emergency load is expected to exceed the thermal limit of the 556 AL
conductor, resulting in a risk of conductor failure and a complete
outage to Quarry Substation.
Supplemental Information: For an outage of the COP-HO 60kV line,
the emergency load on the 556 AL conductor of the PBS-QR 60kV line
is expected to exceed the 650 amp thermal limit in Summer 2013.
For an outage of the COP-AC 60kV line, the emergency load on the 556
AL conductor of the PBS-MB 60kV line is expected to exceed the 650
amp thermal limit in Summer 2015.
Phase 1 will reconductor the HO-QR 60kV line from the former Alma
Substation site to Quarry Substation (4200 feet) in FY 2011 at an
estimated cost of $450,000.
Phase 2 will reconductor the PBS-QR 60kV line from Park Boulevard
Substation to Churchill Ave. (7000 feet) in FY 2012 at an estimated cost
of $700,000.
Phase 3 will reconductor the PBS-QR 60kV line from Churchill Ave. to
Quarry Substation (7000 feet) in FY 2013 at an estimated cost of $700,000.
Phase 4 will reconductor the PBS-MB 60kV line from Park Boulevard Substation to Maybell Substation (6900 feet) in FY 2014 at
an estimated cost of $700,000.
163Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
RECONDUCTOR 60KV OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM (EL-11015) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $450,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 1,473
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $2,100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $2,100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012164
EL-13002Relocate Quarry Road/Hopkins Substations 60 kV Line (Lane A & B)
RELOCATE QUARRY ROAD/HOPKINS SUBSTATIONS
60 KV LINE (LANE A & B) (EL-13002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-79
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project will reduce operating
expenses due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project relocates the Quarry Road and Hopkins (QR/
HO)sub-transmission 60 kV line and associated facilities in the Lane A &
B, and nearby Alma Street area to make the location of these lines
permanent in the wake of the relocation of the Alma Substation.
Justification: These old 60 kV overhead lines are located in a
congested area of downtown and are difficult to access and maintain.
The existing configuration is awkward and space consuming.
Redevelopment has been occurring in recent years in the surrounding
areas and further redevelopment of the area is planned.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $750,000 $850,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $750,000 $850,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 165
EL-02010SCADA System Upgrades
SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADES (EL-02010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2009-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 50%
• Percent Spent: 90.09%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy G-3, Program T-10
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may have possible
exemption from environmental review.
• Design Elements: This project may have possible
exemption from Design Review.
• Operating: This project will improve operating
efficiency.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will upgrade the Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system by upgrading the SCADA System
Hardware. In addition, the Water-Gas-Wastewater SCADA that was
newly integrated into the Electric SCADA system has placed additional
burden on the system. In Fiscal Year 2012, the SCADA servers will
become legacy servers and will need to be replaced.
Justification: Upgrade is necessary to keep the hardware and software
current to handle the ever increasing demands on the system and
maintain manufacturer/industry support.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $711,144
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 640,685
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $200,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000 $65,000 $430,000
Other
Total Budget Request $200,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000 $65,000 $430,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012166
EL-11000Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion
SEALE/WAVERLEY 4/12 KV CONVERSION (EL-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will convert the primary electric distribution
system in the Seale/Waverley area from 4 kV to 12 kV.
Justification: The existing 4 kV distribution system serves 400
customers. Due to prior 4/12 kV conversions in adjacent areas, this area
needs to be served by 12 kV so that adequate circuit tie capability can
be restored. In addition, the area now requires a primary neutral
conductor for proper operation. Removal of this conductor and
associated equipment will further reduce the amount of equipment
and connectors needing maintainence and thereby improve service
reliability.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $40,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $400,000 $400,000
Other
Total Budget Request $400,000 $400,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 167
EL-11014Smart Grid Technology Installation
SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY INSTALLATION
(EL-11014)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies T-3, N-44
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project may have possible
exemption from environmental review.
• Design Elements: This project may have possible
exemption from Design review.
• Operating: This project will improve operating
efficiency.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement portions of the Smart Grid
Road Map, developed in CIP Project EL-10008, that can be cost
effectively applied to the City's electric, gas, and water utilities system
resulting in operational cost savings, environmental benefits plus an
increased quality of life and productivity for the residents and
businesses of Palo Alto.
Justification: The justification will be defined during the development
of the Smart Grid Road Map. In general, the smart grid will help the
City of Palo Alto achieve its goals in: energy conservation, carbon
emission reduction, efficient utilization of aging infrastructure,
improved system reliability, integration of distributed energy
resources, accommodation of battery charging demands, cost-
effective commodity purchases and meeting customer demands for
information
Supplemental Information: This project could include aspects
dealing with: data management system, smart metering, fiber optic
infrastructure improvement, distribution system automation, outage
management system, load management system, demand-side
management system, leak and revenue protection, customer interface
to energy usage and customer equipment control.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $500,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $11,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $11,000,000
Revenues: $1,333,333 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,333,333
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Gas Fund($3,666,666); Water
Fund($3,666,667)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012168
EL-11002St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conversion
ST. FRANCIS/OREGON/AMARILLO/LOUIS 4/12 KV
CONVERSION (EL-11002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: This project will have pad-
mounted equipment screened. This project may be
subject to ARB review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will convert the primary electric distribution
system in the St. Francis/ Oregon/ Amarillo/ Louis area from 4 kV to 12
kV.
Justification: The existing 4 kV distribution system serves 500
customers. Due to prior 4 to 12 kV conversions in adjacent areas, this
area needs to be served at 12 kV so that adequate circuit tie capability
can be restored. In addition, the area now requires a primary neutral
conductor for proper operation. The existing neutral disconnect
switches are in old and deteriorated condition and need replacement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $50,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $450,000 $450,000
Other
Total Budget Request $450,000 $450,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 169
EL-10009Street Light System Conversion Project
STREET LIGHT SYSTEM CONVERSION PROJECT
(EL-10009)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2010-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 4.35%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies T-39, N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, HRB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB and HRB review.
• Operating: This project will reduce operating and
maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project focuses on current plans to pilot light-
emitting diode (LED) street lighting technology in the community over
the next one to two years and a preliminary plan to deploy the
technology over the next 5 years.
Justification: In October of 2008 Staff informed City Council that it will
work with citizen groups, such as the Community Environmental
Action Partnership and others, to locate a residential neighborhood in
which to test and compare LED street light technologies in Fiscal Year
2010. After installation, staff will monitor and evaluate the pilot area for
six months and survey the pilot community for feedback. The project is
expected to take approximately one year for completion.
Supplemental Information: The City has approximately 6,300 high
pressure sodium lamps serving the community. The current estimated
capital cost of converting all 6,300 fixtures is approximately $4 million.
If a 50 percent energy and operational cost savings could be achieved
as a result of the conversion, the simple pay back period would be
approximately 11 years. These estimates are preliminary and will be
refined as operational experience is gained through the pilot
programs.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,366,398
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 59,464
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $3,200,000
Other
Total Budget Request $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $3,200,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012170
EL-89044Substation Facility Improvements
SUBSTATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (EL-89044)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project involves several improvements to substation
facilities, including replacement of batteries and battery chargers
based upon their life expectancy, installation and replacement of
capacitors, renovation of security fences and entry gates, paving of
driveways and parking areas in substations, upgrading of substation
drainage systems, replacement of Remote Terminal Unit (RTU)
equipment, bus voltage monitoring and LAN connections, as well as
other improvements.
Justification: Timely replacement of batteries and battery chargers is
vital to substation operation. The batteries provide critical direct
current control power to operate the protective devices and the
remote terminal units. The chargers maintain the batteries at full
charge, in addition to supplying all the substation direct current power
requirements. Capacitors are installed and replaced to maintain a 95
percent or better power factor at the time of peak demand.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $165,000 $170,000 $180,000 $185,000 $190,000 $890,000
Other
Total Budget Request $165,000 $170,000 $180,000 $185,000 $190,000 $890,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 171
EL-89038Substation Protection Improvements
SUBSTATION PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(EL-89038)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: Possible exemption from
Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the purchase of protective overcurrent
relays, circuit breakers, high voltage fuses and other reliability
improvements at electrical substations. The components are installed
or used to replace existing devices, to improve reliability of the power
system, and to achieve better coordination with customers' protective
devices which interrupt the flow of current during an electrical fault.
Justification: As the electric distribution system becomes more
complex and the reliability of service to customers becomes more
critical, improvements to the protective schemes used by the electric
system are required. This project includes replacement of old
protective devices and controls that no longer provide the level of
functionality now required with more sophisticated and sensitive
devices.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $250,000 $260,000 $270,000 $280,000 $290,000 $1,350,000
Other
Total Budget Request $250,000 $260,000 $270,000 $280,000 $290,000 $1,350,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Electric Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012172
EL-08001UG District 42 - Embarcadero Rd. (Between Emerson & Middlefield)
UG DISTRICT 42 - EMBARCADERO RD. (BETWEEN
EMERSON & MIDDLEFIELD) (EL-08001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Programs L-80, L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: Screening of pad-mounted
equipment will be included. This project may be
subject to ARB review.
• Operating: This project has minimal reduction in
operating expense.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace the existing overhead
distribution system with an underground system along Embarcadero
between Emerson and Middlefield. This project involves creating an
Underground Utilities District and performing the work on a general
benefit basis under the provisions of Utility Rule 17. This rule requires
the Utilities to bear the cost of the distribution system and the
property owners to bear the cost of undergrounding the services.
Justification: Benefits of undergrounding include system
improvement, higher reliability, reduced tree trimming and improved
aesthetics. Undergrounding is being proposed to continue the
ongoing underground conversion program and also because the area
meets the California Public Utilities Commission rules dictating the
areas where a telephone company can underground their lines.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represents
reimbursements by the telephone and CATV company.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $2,650,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $2,650,000
Revenues: $750,000 $750,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($750,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 173
EL-11009UG District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero
UG DISTRICT 43 - ALMA/EMBARCADERO
(EL-11009)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Programs L-
80, L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screened. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project includes the design costs to underground
the existing overhead distribution system in the area bounded by
Alma, Addison, Bryant and Melville. Undergrounding will be completed
in Fiscal Year 2013.
Justification: Benefits of undergrounding include system
improvement, higher reliability, reduced tree trimming and improved
aesthestics. Undergrounding is primarily proposed to continue the
ongoing underground conversion program and also because the area
meets California Public Utilities Commission rules dictating the areas
where a telephone company can underground their lines.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represents
reimbursements from the telephone and CATV companies.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $2,650,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $2,650,000
Revenues: $700,000 $700,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($700,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012174
EL-12001UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real
UG DISTRICT 46 - CHARLESTON/EL CAMINO REAL
(EL-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Programs L-
80, L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption
• Design Elements: Screening of pad-mounted
equipment will be included. This project may be
subject to ARB review.
• Operating: This project will have minimal reduc-
tion in operating expense.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project includes the design costs to underground
the existing overhead distribution system in the area along the 400
block of West Charleston and El Camino Real. Undergrounding will be
completed in Fiscal Year 2014, and the overhead system will be
removed.
Justification: Benefits of undergounding include system
improvement, higher reliability, reduced tree trimming and improved
aesthetics. Undergounding is primarily proposed to continue the
ongoing underground conversion program and also because the area
meets California Public Utilities Commission rules dictating the areas
where a telephone company can underground their lines.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represents
reimbursements from the telephone and CATV companies.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $800,000 $150,000 $1,100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $800,000 $150,000 $1,100,000
Revenues: $400,000 $400,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($400,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 175
EL-11010UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue
UG DISTRICT 47 - MIDDLEFIELD, HOMER AVENUE,
WEBSTER STREET AND ADDISON AVENUE
(EL-11010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 2.58%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44, Programs L-
80,L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: Pad-mounted equipment will
be screned. This project may be subject to ARB
review.
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
cost due to retirement of facilities.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project includes the design costs to underground
the existing overhead distribution system in the area bounded by
Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue.
Undergrounding will be completed in Fiscal Year 2013 and the
overhead system will be removed.
Justification: Benefits of undergounding include system
improvement, higher reliability, reduced tree trimming and improved
aesthetics. Undergounding is primarily proposed to continue the
ongoing underground conversion program and also because the area
meets California Public Utilities Commission rules dictating the areas
where a telephone company can underground their lines.
Supplemental Information: "Revenues from others" represents
reimbursements from the telephone and CATV companies.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $150,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 3,864
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,500,000 $200,000 $1,700,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,500,000 $200,000 $1,700,000
Revenues: $700,000 $700,000
Source of Funds:Electric Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($700,000)
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012176
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 177
Fiber Optics Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
178 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 179
FO-10000Fiber Optics Customer Connections
FIBER OPTICS CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS
(FO-10000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program B-4, L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Screening of pad-mount
equipment will be included. This project may be
subject to ARB review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funds for the installation of fiber
optic infrastructure for new service connections. These new service
connections will be reimbursed to the Fiber Optics Fund as requesting
parties will be billed for the interconnection and the utilities ongoing
costs of ownership. Typical activities in this project include: purchasing,
upgrading, and installing fiber optic cables, conduits, and splice
enclosures.
Justification: This project promotes the formation of a competitive
market for telecommunications in Palo Alto, accelerating the pace at
which high-quality, low-cost advanced telecommunications services
are delivered to residents and businesses, while limiting the negative
impacts on Palo Alto's environment by using existing conduits and
poles. Finally, it enables the Fiber Optic Funds to generate additional
revenues through the enhanced use of its conduits and poles.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
Revenues: $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
Source of Funds:Fiber Optics Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($1,000,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012180
FO-10001Fiber Optics Network System Improvements
FIBER OPTICS NETWORK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
(FO-10001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program B-4, L-81
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is exempt from
CEQA under section 15302
• Design Elements: Screening of pad-mounted
equipment will be included.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project extends the "dark" fiber optic network
around Palo Alto which, in turn, is leased to parties providing
telecommunication services to citizens and businesses in Palo Alto.
Included in the project are increases in system capacity, development
of fiber sub-rings, and general improvements to the fiber system.
Additional fibers will be reserved for future use by the City.
Justification: This project promotes the formation of a competitive
market for telecommunications in Palo Alto, accelerating the pace at
which high-quality, low-cost advanced telecommunications services
are delivered to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto. It does so
while limiting the negative impacts on Palo Alto's environment by
using pre-existing conduit and poles. Finally, it enables the Fiber Optics
Fund to generate additional revenues through the enhanced use of its
conduit and poles.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,300,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Fiber Optics Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 181
Gas Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012182
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 183
Gas Map
EISCAL YEAB
FY »ll-'U
FY ""..."
FY ,.".."
FY >l1+-"
FY ."...,.
C«v 01 PfIlD Alto
GAS UTILITY 2012-2016
Capital ImproYement Program
~ LEGEND
lillill.lli CQNSTBUCIIQN
OMRP '" OMRP 8
ClMRP B OMRP '"
ClMRP " OMRP Z
OMRP " OMRP "
ClMRP " OMRP "
NOI'E' PLOTI'ED MAIN REFLECI' YEAR. OF CONSIlWCTION
OMRP -GAS MAIN REI"IACEMENT PROJECT
Revised: 3-30-2011
\
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012184
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 185
GS-03007Directional Boring Equipment
DIRECTIONAL BORING EQUIPMENT (GS-03007)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce expenses for
installation of mains and services.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will fund the purchase of additional
equipment for WGW Operations to assist with installing and locating
new gas services by using directional boring methods. Increased use of
directional boring and rotary backhoe drills to install gas facilities will
reduce both damage to surface improvements (sidewalks, paving,
landscaping, etc.) and associated restoration costs. Continued use of
directional boring construction requires an additional replacement
tooling program.
Justification: This equipment will supplement the directional boring
equipment purchased in Fiscal Year 1997 and 2001 by providing
updated locating equipment for Operations and Engineering staff. The
equipment includes backhoe rotary drilling for keyhole excavations
(Fiscal Year 2007), a rock drill bit capable of penetrating sandstone, drill
head tracking system, back reamers to expand the bore path and allow
larger product lines to be installed with reduced tension and vacuum
excavation equipment.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $64,000 $68,000 $132,000
Other
Total Budget Request $64,000 $68,000 $132,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012186
GS-02013Directional Boring Machine
DIRECTIONAL BORING MACHINE (GS-02013)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce expenses for
installation of mains and services.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project purchases a new directional boring machine
every three years for small diameter mains and service line
installations. These purchases include a complete stand-alone boring
system capable of installing small diameter mains and one-inch
diameter gas services. The purchases will include all ancillary
equipment required to complete the installation of new service lines
including: boring unit, down hole tooling, drilling mud system, and
tracking devices for drill head location.
Justification: Due to the success of the directional boring machine
purchased in Fiscal Year 1997, it has become apparent that a smaller
unit would allow use of this technology in areas that it could not access
otherwise. Continually adding and maintaining equipment will further
expand the City's ability to install service lines with directional boring
methods, thereby decreasing overall surface impacts, customer
inconvenience, and installation costs.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $45,000 $250,000 $295,000
Other
Total Budget Request $45,000 $250,000 $295,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 187
GS-80019Gas Meters and Regulators
GAS METERS AND REGULATORS (GS-80019)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce maintenance
costs on meters and increase revenues.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project installs meters and regulators to serve new
customers and replaces existing meters and regulators when required.
Regulators with relief valves will be provided. Modifications and
replacements to distribution system meter sets are made at the rate of
about 2,000 meter and regulator sets per year. New electronic pressure
and temperature compensating meters are installed at high-use
customer sites in order to increase measurement accuracy and allow
monitoring of real-time gas flow.
Justification: New meters and regulators are required to safely serve
new customers and to replace units that cannot be repaired
economically. The meter replacement program reduces revenue loss
due to under-registering gas meters and supplies customers with
accurate monthly bills. Maintaining a large meter (675 cubic feet per
hour and larger) exchange cycle of 10 years and a residential meter
exchange cycle of 17 to 20 years will reduce the annual revenue loss
from under-registering meters.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $306,000 $315,000 $325,000 $335,000 $351,750 $1,632,750
Other
Total Budget Request $306,000 $315,000 $325,000 $335,000 $351,750 $1,632,750
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012188
GS-80017Gas System Extensions
GAS SYSTEM EXTENSIONS (GS-80017)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Department.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project extends the gas distribution system to
provide gas service to new customers and augments service to
customers with increased natural gas demands. Improvements include
new mains, services, valves, regulators, meters and accessories. Some
new services will be installed by contract construction to reduce the
City's response time to new service requests.
Justification: This ongoing project upgrades infrastructure to provide
gas service connections to new customers, meet changes in existing
customer service demands, and respond to changes in gas service
requirements due to new development or redevelopment.
Supplemental Information: Revenues from others represent
reimbursements from customers.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $710,000 $720,000 $730,000 $752,000 $789,600 $3,701,600
Other
Total Budget Request $710,000 $720,000 $730,000 $752,000 $789,600 $3,701,600
Revenues: $710,000 $720,000 $730,000 $752,000 $789,600 $3,701,600
Source of Funds:Gas Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($3,701,600)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 189
GS-11002Gas System Improvements
GAS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (GS-11002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funding as needed to improve the
gas distribution system. Typical activities include: increasing
distribution system capacity for load growth, replacing deteriorated
capital facilities, reconfiguring/adding to the system to improve service
reliability, and making general improvements to the system.
Justification: Gas distribution system reliability and adequate capacity
are critical to providing a high level of service to customers in Palo Alto.
When service interrruptions occur, customers may experience
significant economic losses. City must continuously evaluate service
reliability needs and make improvements to the system to maintain
top level service to City customers.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $19,500
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $200,000 $206,000 $212,200 $218,600 $229,530 $1,066,330
Other
Total Budget Request $200,000 $206,000 $212,200 $218,600 $229,530 $1,066,330
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012190
GS-10001GMR - Project 20
GMR - PROJECT 20 (GS-10001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2010-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.02%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenace Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized and
structurally deficient (thin-walled) ABS gas mains and services. By
researching the maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas
distribution system, staff identifies mains and services with these
problems. This gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of
the proposed improvements to the gas distribution system and
coordination with Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates
for main and service replacement.
Justification: This project will replace the remaining approximately
32,000 linear feet of ABS pipe. The goal of the accelerated
infrastructure replacement program is to replace all of the remaining
ABS gas mains and services in the gas distribution system. This project
is mandatory due to the need to replace aging infrastructure and to
reduce the City's liability exposure to ABS gas facilities.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, GMR 20 May
include: East Bayshore — Embarcadero to San Antonio; Faber Place —
Embarcadero to End; Embarcadero — Faber to End; PA Airport —
Entire system including golf course; Laura — East Bayshore to End;
Corporation Way — All; Elwell Ct. — All; Page Mill — ECR to Hanover;
Arboretum — Sand Hill to ECR; Transport — Industrial to San Antonio;
Commercial — East Charleston to Transport; East Charleston — Fabian
to San Antonio; West Bayshore Amarillo to Matadero Creek; West
Bayshore — Loma Verde to 101 Undercrossing; Wildwood - Channing
to Embarcadero, and Cass Way - Barron Ave. to End. This project
completes the replacement of ABS gas mains.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $644,014
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 151
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $5,970,000 $5,970,000
Other
Total Budget Request $5,970,000 $5,970,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 191
GS-11000GMR - Project 21
GMR - PROJECT 21 (GS-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenace Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately sized, and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas distribution
system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: This project will continue replacement of remaining ABS
services, PVC mains, and steel mains with ineffective cathodic
protection. The goal of the accelerated infrastructure replacement
program is to replace all of the remaining ABS gas services and PVC
mains in the gas distribution system. This project is mandatory due to
the need to replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's
liability exposure to these ABS, PVC, and steel gas facilities.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenance program to replace ABS services,
PVC, and steel mains before streets are paved.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $457,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $6,150,000 $6,150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $6,150,000 $6,150,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012192
GS-12001GMR - Project 22
GMR - PROJECT 22 (GS-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized, and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas distribution
system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: This project will continue replacement of remaining ABS
services, PVC mains, and steel mains with ineffective cathodic
protection. The goal of the accelerated infrastructure replacement
program is to replace all of the remaining ABS gas services and PVC
mains in the gas distribution system. This project is mandatory due to
the need to replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's
liability exposure to these ABS, PVC, and steel gas facilities.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenance program to replace ABS services,
PVC, and steel mains before streets are paved.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $468,000 $468,000
Construction Costs $3,200,000 $3,200,000
Other
Total Budget Request $468,000 $3,200,000 $3,668,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 193
GS-13001GMR - Project 23
GMR - PROJECT 23 (GS-13001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas distribution
system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: This project will continue replacement of remaining ABS
services, PVC mains, and steel mains with ineffective cathodic
protection. The goal of the accelerated infrastructure replacement
program is to replace all of the remaining ABS gas services and PVC
mains in the gas distribution system. This project is mandatory due to
the need to replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's
liability exposure to these ABS, PVC, and steel gas facilities.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenance program to replace ABS services,
PVC, and steel mains before streets are paved.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $482,000 $482,000
Construction Costs $3,300,000 $3,300,000
Other
Total Budget Request $482,000 $3,300,000 $3,782,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012194
GS-16000GMR Project 26 NEW
GMR PROJECT 26 (GS-16000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2016-2018
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: The streets for this project will
be selected based on recommendations of Distribu-
tion Integrity Management Plan (DIMP). The project
will be coordinated with Public Works Street Main-
tenance Program.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized, and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas distribution
system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: The project will continue replacement of PVC mains and
services located in business districts and steel mains and services with
ineffective cathodic protection. This project is mandatory due to the
need to replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's liability
exposure to these PVC and steel gas facilities.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenace program to replace PVC and steel
mains before the strets are paved.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $570,000 $570,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $570,000 $570,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 195
GS-14003GMR-Project 24
GMR-PROJECT 24 (GS-14003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: The project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized, and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in ghe gas distribution
system, staff indentifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: This project will replace the remaining thin walled ABS
gas services, continue replacement of targeted PVC mains, and Steel
mains with ineffective cathodic protection. The goal of the accelerated
infrastructure replacement program is to replace all of the remaining
ABS gas services and PVC mains/services in the targeted areas in the
distribution system. The project is mandatory due to the need to
replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's liability exposure.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the PUblic Works Street Maintenance program to replace ABS services,
PVC, and steel mains before streets are paved.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $492,000 $492,000
Construction Costs $3,465,000 $3,465,000
Other
Total Budget Request $492,000 $3,465,000 $3,957,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012196
GS-15000GMR-Project 25
GMR-PROJECT 25 (GS-15000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2017
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces leaking, inadequately-sized, and
structurally deficient gas mains and services. By researching the
maintenance and leak histories of the mains in the gas distribution
system, staff identifies mains and services with these problems. This
gas system analysis, along with computer modeling of the proposed
improvements to the gas distribution system and coordination with
Public Works Paving CIP, is used to select candidates for main and
service replacement.
Justification: This project will replace the remaining thin walled ABS
gas services, continue replacement of targeted PVC mains, and Steel
mains with ineffective cathodic protection. The goal of the accelerated
infrastructure replacement program is to replace all of the remaining
ABS gas services and PVC mains/services in the targeted areas in the
distribution system. The project is mandatory due to the need to
replace aging infrastructure and to reduce the City's liability exposure.
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenance program to replace ABS services,
PVC, and steel mains before streets are paved.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $542,000 $542,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $542,000 $542,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 197
GS-03008Polyethylene Fusion Equipment
POLYETHYLENE FUSION EQUIPMENT (GS-03008)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: None
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce expenses for
installation of mains and services.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project purchases new polyethylene (PE) fusion
equipment. The new equipment will replace existing equipment
which is nearing the end of its useful life of two years. This equipment is
used to fuse together pipe joints in the City's gas distribution system
that utilize polyethylene pipe.
Justification: The PE fusion equipment has a useful life of two years. As
the equipment ages, the quality of the fusion joints begins to decline,
and the operators must spend more time scraping, aligning, and fusing
construction joints. In order to maintain high quality standards for the
installation of City gas mains, along with the associated service
standards and worker productivity measures, this equipment requires
replacement every two years.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $34,000 $36,100 $70,100
Other
Total Budget Request $34,000 $36,100 $70,100
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012198
GS-03009System Extensions - Unreimbursed
SYSTEM EXTENSIONS - UNREIMBURSED (GS-03009)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance costs and other expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces existing sections of the gas
distribution system to continue providing gas service to existing
customers. Improvements include replacement of existing main
sections, services, valves, regulators, meters, and accessories. Some
new services may be installed by contract construction to reduce the
City's response time to new service requests.
Justification: This project replaces gas distribution and existing
customer service infrastructure. Existing gas service connections are
replaced by the Gas Utility to maintain customer service. This project
will capture non-reimbursed capital assets installed by staff. Some
installations may be performed by contract to speed the installation
process and reduce overtime expenses. Contracting some services for
capital work requests beyond the capacity of City crews will improve
response time.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $167,000 $172,000 $178,000 $183,500 $192,675 $893,175
Other
Total Budget Request $167,000 $172,000 $178,000 $183,500 $192,675 $893,175
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Gas Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 199
Water Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012200
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 201
Water Map
,I
I:" = ,
LE~END
flSCA!.~ DESIGN CONSTRYCT1ON NEW MAINS
IT m -u _. _.
IT ~u ~~" ~~.
IT -_. -" IT ~ ~~. ~~.
~ --. _.
PlDn1!D MAIN RI'H£CT \'>'Ak CIt' UlM.'TRUCllON WMRI" -WATEIl MAIN ItEl'UCEMENT PROJECT
,
/'
--.
... ,
\
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012202
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 203
WS-09000Seismic Water System Upgrades
SEISMIC WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES (WS-09000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 1.16%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC, PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with Public Works.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will provide structural reinforcement for the
Monte Bello, Corte Madera, Park, Boronda and Dahl reservoirs to
improve earthquake resistance in compliance with the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7) seismic codes. Work at the reservoir
sites will also include the installation of: seismic shut off valves, flexible
joints at the inlet/outlet piping connections, backup power supplies,
the relocation of overflow pipes and reinforcement of interior pipe
columns.
Justification: Palo Alto's water tanks have no protection from water
loss in a seismic event. If an earthquake causes a significant water leak,
various impacts such as loss of water for fire fighting purposes, loss of
water storage for drinking, property damage from flooding,
environmental damages, and possible mudslides causing significant
property damage could occur. The seismic protection systems will
preserve potable water after a seismic event.
Supplemental Information: This project is in response to the
recommendations contained in the January 1987 Seismic Evaluation of
Water Reservoirs conducted by Beyaz & Patel, Inc.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $800,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 9,247
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $2,700,000 $3,200,000 $3,820,000 $9,720,000
Other
Total Budget Request $2,700,000 $3,200,000 $3,820,000 $9,720,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012204
WS-02014W-G-W Utility GIS Data
W-G-W UTILITY GIS DATA (WS-02014)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2015
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-10
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This is not a project under CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will improve the ability of Utilities
Department staff to use the Geographic Information System (GIS). As
with other GIS activities, continuing the completion of data-related
tasks is the primary emphasis. Because field personnel still need
accurate paper maps in the field, standard map books will be produced
that meet their specific needs. Funding is also included to improve the
GIS user interface to better serve the unique requirements of Utility
Department users.
Justification: The Geographic Information System has grown from
being a set of special purpose computer applications to being an
information tool that serves all segments of the City. Initially used only
by a few highly skilled technicians and engineers, GIS applications are
now available to any City staff members who request them.
Applications have been developed which make GIS information
accessible to hundreds of users, greatly increasing the value of the
system.
Supplemental Information: Additional funding was requested in FY
2008 of $270,000 to support the updating of WGW mapping systems,
reduce the mapping backlog and develop a database transfer method
for updating the GIS system. This project may enhance WGW
estimating tools and data updating software for preparing system
engineering drawings and updating data when the projects are
completed. The enhancements will include drawing tools which will
facilitate timely updates of the WGW system maps, and logic files
which will facilitate work order estimates. The WGW Engineering group
prepares estimates and records mapping changes in integrated
software systems. The integration of these engineering functions
reduces the time needed to prepare estimates and to post mapping
changes. The addition of the drawing tools and logic files will greatly
improve the efficiency of the overall product. FY2010 to FY2015
funding will provide GPS surveying to improve the GIS base map
accuracy for CIP project plans.
205Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
W-G-W UTILITY GIS DATA (WS-02014)
CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Revenues: $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $268,000
Source of Funds:Water Fund with the following reimbursements: Gas Fund($134,000); Wastewater Collection
Fund($134,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012206
WS-11003Water Distribution System Improvements
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
(WS-11003)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 8.11%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: This project will ensure water distri-
bution delivery reliability and minimize operations
and maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funds as needed to improve water
distribution system deliverability and reliability. Typical activities
include: installing restraining joints at critical pipelines and bridge
crossings, increasing the size of inadequate facilities, system leakage
surveys, network modeling and fire flow studies or other system
improvements as required.
Justification: Water distribution system reliability and adequate
capacity are critical to providing a high level of service to customers in
Palo Alto. Continuous evaluation of system needs and making required
improvements must be conducted to maintain adequate quantities of
quality water, meeting local, State and Federal safe drinking water
standards.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $200,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 16,216
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Other
Total Budget Request $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 207
WS-80015Water Meters
WATER METERS (WS-80015)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce water meter
maintenance and increase accuracy.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This ongoing project includes purchasing meters for new
customers, upgrading meters for current customers, installing meter
bypasses and replacing obsolete meters that are no longer repairable.
This project also tests and calibrates selected water meters annually.
Justification: This project will maintain meter accuracy, reliability, and
stock meter equipment and replacement parts. The City has an
ongoing meter repair and replacement program. Meter replacements
enhance information on system water volume, align the utility's ten
year meter testing and replacement cycle with AWWA M6
recommendations, and provide accurate data for the Water Utility
billing system. Additional meters will be purchased for new and
replacement irrigation systems.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $215,000 $222,000 $229,000 $236,000 $243,080 $1,145,080
Other
Total Budget Request $215,000 $222,000 $229,000 $236,000 $243,080 $1,145,080
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012208
WS-07001Water Recycling Facilities
WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES (WS-07001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 35.93%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Project will require environmen-
tal review.
• Design Elements: Any above ground structures
will go through the appropriate review process.
• Operating: Project will increase utilities operating
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the
existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers in the City.
The pipeline will primarily access the Stanford Research Park and
provide an alternative supply source of 1,000 AFY (acre feet per year).
Justification: Palo Alto is aggressively pursuing all options to meet
future water supply needs. Recycled water provides a stable, drought-
proof supply of water that replaces the need to use Hetch Hetchy
potable supplies for irrigation purposes.
Consultant Services Scope: RMC Environmental is preparing the
environmental report and facility plan for the project.
Supplemental Information: The success of this project to proceed is
dependent on the ability of the Utilities Department to find funding
sources either in the form of a grant or other type of financing
arrangement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,100,122
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 395,241
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000
Construction Costs $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $25,500,000
Revenues:$8,000,000 $8,000,000
Source of Funds:Water Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($8,000,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 209
WS-08001Water Reservoir Coating Improvements
WATER RESERVOIR COATING IMPROVEMENTS
(WS-08001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2008-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 3.93%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with Public Works. This project may be subject to
ARB review.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace the coatings on the interiors and
exteriors of the City's four foothill steel water reservoirs. This project
removes and replaces the interior and exterior coatings on the
reservoirs. Detailed inspection of the remaining metal structural
components will be made after the coatings are completely removed.
Minor strengthening of the structural components is expected.
Justification: Recent coating inspection of the interiors showed signs
of heavy rusting on the interior walls, roof and support beams on each
of the steel reservoirs. The reservoirs coatings need to be replaced to
extend the life of the reservoir structures.
Supplemental Information: These reservoirs were last coated in 1995.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $2,050,491
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 80,489
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $860,000 $590,000 $1,450,000
Other
Total Budget Request $860,000 $590,000 $1,450,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012210
WS-80014Water Service Hydrant Replacement
WATER SERVICE HYDRANT REPLACEMENT
(WS-80014)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: Screening may be required on
above-grade equipment. This project may be sub-
ject to ARB review.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces system control valves, deteriorated
galvanized service lines, lead goosenecks, and fire hydrant valves and
assemblies as a result of Fire Department flow testing; upgrades fire
hydrants in main replacement project areas; and replaces existing
undersized or deteriorated copper water services. Upgrading hydrants
and system control valves is consistent with fire protection policies.
Justification: In order to maintain a high water quality standard for
Palo Alto's water supplies, it is necessary to replace old, lead,
galvanized, and corroded copper water service lines when found. The
City has made a concerted effort to replace lead and galvanized service
lines, but periodically these service lines are discovered and need to be
replaced.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $217,000 $222,000 $229,000 $236,000 $243,080 $1,147,080
Other
Total Budget Request $217,000 $222,000 $229,000 $236,000 $243,080 $1,147,080
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 211
WS-80013Water System Extensions
WATER SYSTEM EXTENSIONS (WS-80013)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will reduce system main-
tenance costs and increase revenue.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project is needed due to the fact that system
extensions are required to provide service to new customers and to
serve existing customers requesting expanded service. These
improvements include new main extensions, valves, domestic services,
meters on upgraded services, backflow devices, fire services, and fire
hydrants. Some new services will be installed by contract construction
to reduce the City's response time for new services.
Justification: Some new service installations will be contracted out to
speed service installations which will reduce overtime expenses.
Contracted service installations will augment City forces in extending
and upgrading infrastructure to provide new or expanded water
connections for new developments and redevelopments. Having a
contractor on-call to install excess work beyond City crew capacity will
make the City more responsive to spikes in service requests without
staff overtime.
Supplemental Information: "Others" represents revenues from
connection fees and other service call fees. Included in this revenue is
$500,000 capacity fees. The addition of capacity charge fee among the
user charge fees was approved by City Council on July 1, 2005. Capacity
fees are collected to cover the proportionate cost of system
improvements required to serve the new customers. Excess of
revenues over expenditures are transferred to the rate stabilization
reserve.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $460,000 $2,200,000
Other
Total Budget Request $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $460,000 $2,200,000
Revenues: $700,000 $709,000 $718,000 $728,000 $749,840 $3,604,840
Source of Funds:Water Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($3,604,840)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012212
WS-11004Water System Supply Improvements
WATER SYSTEM SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS
(WS-11004)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 3.06%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: This project will ensure water supply
reliability
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funding, as needed, to improve the
City’s water distribution systems. These systems include: connection
facilities between the City’s and the San Francisco Public Utility
Commission’s pipelines, emergency water wells within the City,
pumping stations used to transport water to the reservoirs in the
foothills, improvements to water reservoirs, and pipelines.
Justification: It is critical that the City has an adequate supply of water
that meets Federal and State drinking water requirements. To meet
these objectives, the City must continually evaluate systems and make
improvements when they are required.
Supplemental Information: Typical activities performed under this
project would include: piping modifications, equipment replacements
associated with water delivery, Supervisory Control software upgrades,
system modifications for water system quality compliance,
implementation of asset management systems, conditional
assessment of the reliability of transmission mains and security system
installations.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $200,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 6,113
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Other
Total Budget Request $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 213
WS-11000WMR - Project 25
WMR - PROJECT 25 (WS-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the maintenance
history of the system and identifying those that are undersized,
corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis, staff has
developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, Project 25 may
include: N. California Ave. - from Barbara to Embarcadero Rd., Emerson
St. - from Embarcadero Rd. to Seale Ave., Heather Ln. - from Channing
Ave. to Embarcadero Rd., Iris Way - from Heather Ln. to Primrose Way,
Kingley Ave. - from Alma St. to Waverley St., Palo Alto Ave. - from
Seneca St. to Chaucer St., Primrose Way - from Iris Way to Heather Ln.,
University Ave. - from Webster to Lincoln Ave. Approximately 21 miles
of the total 214 miles in the City's water distribution system are still in
need of replacement or rehabilitation. Each year the projects are
evaluated and the highest priority is given to the most deteriorated
portions of the system.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $292,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $3,152,000 $3,152,000
Other
Total Budget Request $3,152,000 $3,152,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012214
WS-12001WMR - Project 26
WMR - PROJECT 26 (WS-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are
undersized, corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis,
staff has developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Approximately 18 miles of the total 214
miles in the City's water distribution system are still in need of
replacement or rehabilitation. Each year the projects are evaluated
and the highest priority is given to the most deteriorated portions of
the system. Based on bids received, WMR 26 may include:Bryson Ave. -
from Middlefield Rd. to end, Byron St. - from Palo Alto Ave. to
Hawthorne Ave., Greer Rd. - from 3143 Greer Rd. to 3161 Greer Rd.,
Greer Rd. - from : Lawrence Ln. to Maddux Dr., Grove Ave.- from
Mayview Ave. to Grove Ct., Hamilton Ave. - from Emerson St. to
Ramona St., Hamilton Ave. - from Ramona St. to Webster St., Channing
St. - from Bryant St. to Webster St., Miranda Ave. - from Arroyo Ct. to
East end, Miranda Ct. - from Miranda Ave. to end; Moana Ct. - from
Miranda Ave. to end, Park Blvd. - from Olive Ave. to Portage Ave.,
Portage Ave. - from Ash St. to Park Blvd., Ramona St. - from El Verano
Ave. to East Meadow Dr., Tennyson Ave. - from Alma St. to Bryant,
Wilton Ave.
215Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
WMR - PROJECT 26 (WS-12001) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $305,000 $305,000
Construction Costs $3,245,000 $3,245,000
Other
Total Budget Request $305,000 $3,245,000 $3,550,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012216
WS-13001WMR - Project 27
WMR - PROJECT 27 (WS-13001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are
undersized, corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis,
staff has developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Approximately 15 miles of the total 214
miles in the City's water distribution system are still in need of
replacement or rehabilitation. Each year the projects are evaluated
and the highest priority is given to the most deteriorated portions of
the system. Cereza Drive - Amaranta Ave. to Solana Drive; Churchill Ave.
- Alma St. to Cowper St.; Coleridge Ave. - Bryant St. to Embarcadero Rd.;
Cowper St. - Embarcadero Rd. to Seale Ave.; Fulton St. - Embarcadero
Rd. to Seale Ave.; High St. - Lincoln Ave. to Embarcadero Rd.; Kellogg
Ave. - Emerson St. to Waverley St.; Tennyson Ave. - Cowper St. to Fulton
St.; University Ave. - East Cresent Dr. to End; Waverley St. - Embarcadero
Rd. to Seale Ave.; Webster St. - Santa Rita Ave. to Oregon Expressway
will be replaced as part of this project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $314,000 $314,000
Construction Costs $3,245,000 $3,245,000
Other
Total Budget Request $314,000 $3,245,000 $3,559,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 217
WS-14001WMR - Project 28
WMR - PROJECT 28 (WS-14001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are
undersized, corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis,
staff has developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Approximately 12 miles of the total 214
miles in the City's water distribution system are still in need of
replacement or rehabilitation. Each year the projects are evaluated and
the highest priority is given to the most deteriorated portions of the
system. Based on bids received, WMR 28 may include: Amarillo Ave. -
from Louis Rd. to East Bayshore Rd., Arrowhead Way - from Indian Dr. to
Aztec Way, Aztec Way - from Arrowhead Way to Cardinal Way, Cardinal
Way - from Aztec Wy to Indian Dr., Coastland Dr. - from Marion Ave. to
Moreno Ave., Elmdale Pl. - from Moreno Ave. to end, Indian Dr. - from
Oregon Ave. to Moreno Ave., Newell Rd. - from 1350 Newell Rd. to
Hamilton Ave., N. California Ave., - from Waverley St. to 575 N. California
Ave., Marion Ave.- from Greer Rd. to 1095 Moreno Ave., Rinconada Ave.
- from Emerson St. to Bryant St., Santa Rita Ave. - from Bryant St. to
Cowper St., Tanland Dr. - from Amarillo Ave. to end.
218 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012
WMR - PROJECT 28 (WS-14001) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $324,000 $324,000
Construction Costs $3,345,000 $3,345,000
Other
Total Budget Request $324,000 $3,345,000 $3,669,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 219
WS-15002WMR - Project 29
WMR - PROJECT 29 (WS-15002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are
undersized, corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis,
staff has developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Approximately 9 miles of the total 214
miles in the City's water distribution system are still in need of
replacement or rehabilitation. Each year the projects are evaluated and
the highest priority is given to the most deteriorated portions of the
system. Based on the bids received, WMR 29 may include: Newell Rd.
from 1350 Newell Rd. to Hamilton Ave., Rinconada Ave. from Emerson
St. to Bryant St., Waverley St. from El Dorado Ave. to El Carmelo Ave.,
Loma Verde Rd. from Ross to Alma, Loma Verde Rd. from Ross Rd. to
Louis Rd., Avalon Court from Loma Verde Rd. to the End, David Ave
from Loma Verde Rd. to the End, Ross Road from Oregon Ave. to
Moreno Ave., Ross Road From East Meadow Ave. to Mayview Ave. Towle
Way from Middlefield to the End, Towle Place from Towle Way to the
End, East Bayshore From Embarcadero Rd. to Watson Ave., Homer Ave.
from Waverly St. to Alma.
220 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012
WMR - PROJECT 29 (WS-15002) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $334,000 $334,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $334,000 $334,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 221
WS-16001WMR - Project 30 NEW
WMR - PROJECT 30 (WS-16001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2016-2017
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will decrease water sys-
tem maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None.
Description: This project will replace structurally deficient water mains
and appurtenances. Some mains are inadequate in size to supply
required flows and pressures for fire protection, and others are subject
to recurring breaks. Mains are selected by researching the
maintenance history of the system and identifying those that are
undersized, corroded, and subject to breaks. Based on this analysis,
staff has developed a program to accelerate main replacements.
Justification: The rate of main replacement was increased from one
mile per year to three miles per year in Fiscal Year 1994. In addition, an
analysis of cost effective system improvements was initiated in the
same year. This analysis helped determine the best materials and
construction methods to use with a goal of reducing the accelerated
main replacement program’s cost. The program to replace 75 miles of
deficient mains started in 1993 and is planned for completion in 2018
(25 year period).
Supplemental Information: Targeted streets will be coordinated with
the Public Works Street Maintenance program to replace mains that are
undersized.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $344,020 $344,020
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $344,020 $344,020
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Water Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012222
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 223
Wastewater Collection Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012224
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 225
Wastewater Collection Map
WASTEWA
LEGEND
E\SCAl. YEAR !l«!llli CONSTR\JC!1ON
~ ~ _. _.
~ _u _. _.
~ --_. _.
~ ~. _. _.
~ -_ . _.
N<JI1I • P<DmiD WAIN ~ YEo\It !It' 1DOlJlIIICID<\-
"'"' -1I'A,!Tn'ATI!Il ........". .. ~ ,.gmcr
PROJECTS
'"
N5WMAlNS
.", 'c-__ ----
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012226
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 227
WC-99013Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement
SEWER LATERAL/MANHOLE REHAB/REPLACEMENT
(WC-99013)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2010-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies N-18, N-25
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses and backwater damage claims .
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will replace defective sewer laterals,
cleanouts, manholes; install backwater devices, and purchase
equipment to support these activties in order to maintain the
Wastewater Collection System. The work will help reduce both the
backflows of sewage onto private property and the City's treatment
expenses. This project also cleans and videotapes sewer collection
mains and laterals as necessary. Customers will be reimbursed for
installation of new lower laterals and backwater devices.
Justification: The City performs routine annual maintenance on the
Wastewater Collection System. Information collected during
maintenance activities is used to prioritize work on the collection
system. Defective laterals, for example, will be replaced to re-establish
existing services, reduce maintenance expenses, and eliminate ground
water intrusion. Backwater devices will be installed to reduce claims
against the City. New manholes will be installed or rehabilitated to
improve structural integrity.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $565,000 $570,000 $617,000 $636,000 $655,000 $3,043,000
Other
Total Budget Request $565,000 $570,000 $617,000 $636,000 $655,000 $3,043,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012228
WC-80020Sewer System Extensions
SEWER SYSTEM EXTENSIONS (WC-80020)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies N-18, N-25
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: The trenching work of this
project will be coordinated with Public Works
Department.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for the installation of sewer lateral
connections, additions of existing mains, and extensions of mains for
new or existing customers.
Justification: It is necessary to provide sewer connections to serve
new customers and to respond to changes in sewer requirements due
to redevelopment. Old existing non-plastic sewer service laterals
become cracked and broken by tree root intrusion, ground movement,
and third party excavation damages requiring the laterals to be
replaced. Some new service installations will be done via external
contract in order to speed the installation process and reduce internal
overtime expense.
Supplemental Information: $500,000 added each year to revenues
for Capacity Fees.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $340,000 $350,000 $361,000 $372,000 $383,000 $1,806,000
Other
Total Budget Request $340,000 $350,000 $361,000 $372,000 $383,000 $1,806,000
Revenues: $740,000 $750,000 $761,000 $771,000 $794,000 $3,816,000
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($3,816,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 229
WC-15002Wastewater System Improvements
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (WC-15002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-19
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides funding as needed to improve the
wastewater collection system. Typical activities include: increasing
system capacity for growth, flow monitoring, hydraulic modeling and
system analysis, load simulations, asset management analysis and
assessment, system inflow/infiltration analysis, and sanitary sewer
overflow monitoring and reduction.
Justification: Wastewater collection system reliability and adequate
capacity are critical to providing a high level of service to customers in
Palo Alto. Mainline sewer backups and overflows into homes and
businesses are costly and a health risk. Reducing the losses associated
with these backup claims requires a continuous evaluation of system
needs and making improvements to maintain a high level of service to
our customers.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Other
Total Budget Request $206,000 $212,000 $218,000 $225,000 $232,000 $1,093,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012230
WC-12001WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 25
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 25
(WC-12001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in the Master Plan or video inspection
work with deficient laterals in need of enlargement or rehabilitation.
Priority will be given to areas identified by Public Works as targeted
work zones ensuring infrastructure coordination among the different
City department
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations for the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning and videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by
condition assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers;
and by hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 25 may include: Alma —from
Kingsley to Rinconada, Melville — from Alma to Waverley, Kellogg —
from Alma to Embarcadero, Churchill — from Alma to Embarcadero,
Emerson — from Embarcadero to Churchill, Bryant — from
Embarcadero to Churchill, Waverley — from Kellogg to Churchill, Seale
— from Alma to Bryant, Arcadia - from cul-de-sac to Newell, Kings —
from end to Newell, Martin — from Lincoln to Center, Forest — from
Lincoln to Center, Lincoln — from Forest to Hamilton, Kirby — from
end to Martin, Seneca — from Hamilton to Boyce, Embarcadero —
from Louis to Wildwood, Edgewood — from Jefferson to Jackson, Ivy -
from Greer to Wildwood, Greer — from Channing to Embarcadero,
easement from 110 Walter Hayes to 126 Walter Hayes, Walter Hayes —
from Walnut to 166 Walter Hayes, Lois Lane — from Walnut to Stanley,
easement from Lois Lane to Walter Hayes.
231Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 25
(WC-12001) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $300,000 $300,000
Construction Costs $2,912,000 $2,912,000
Other
Total Budget Request $300,000 $2,912,000 $3,212,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012232
WC-13001WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 26
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 26
(WC-13001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduces future main-
tenance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in the Master Plan or video inspection
work as deficient and in need of enlargement or rehabilitation. Priority
will be given to areas identified by Public Works as targeted work zones
ensuring infrastructure coordination among the different City
departments.
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations for the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning and videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by
condition assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers;
and by hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 26 may include: Monroe — from
Monroe Drive to ECR, El Camino Real — from Cesano to Vista, El
Camino Real — from W. Charleston to El Camino Way, James — from
Wilkie to El Camino Way, Whitclem — from Wilkie to Park, Whitclem
Place — from end to Whitclem Dr, Whitclem Way — from end to
Whitclem Dr, Whitclem Court — from end to Whitclem Dr, Park — from
Whitclem to Tennessee, Ruthelma — from Whitclem Dr to W.
Charleston Rd, Edlee - from Wilkie Way to Park Blvd, El Camino Real -
from Ventura to Jacob's Ct, Darlington — from End to Park, Carolina —
from End to Park, Tennessee — from End to Park, Wilkie — from
Tennessee to Carolina, and W. Charleston - from Wilkie Way to ECR.
233Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 26
(WC-13001) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $310,000 $310,000
Construction Costs $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $310,000 $3,000,000 $3,310,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012234
WC-11000WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 24
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 24
(WC-11000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in the Master Plan or video inspection
work as deficient and in need of enlargement or rehabilitation. Priority
will be given to areas identified by Public Works as targeted work zones
ensuring infrastructure coordination among the different City
departments.
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations of the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning and videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by
condition assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers;
and by hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 24 may include: Alma — from Forest
to Embarcadero, Emerson - from Forest to Embarcadero, Homer —
from Lane 7 to Emerson, High — from Homer to Channing, Channing
— from High to Emerson, Channing — from Waverley to Guinda,
Addison - from Alma to Emerson, Addison — from Bryant to Guinda,
Scott — from Channing to Addison, Bryant — from Channing to
Embarcadero, Lincoln — from Bryant to Webster, Lincoln — from
Fulton to Channing, Kingsley — from Embarcadero to Webster,
Kingsley — from Middlefield to Guinda, Melville — from Waverley to
Channing, Waverley — from Channing to Embarcadero, Cowper —
from Forest to Embarcadero, Webster — from Homer to Melville, Byron
— from Lincoln to Kellogg, Middlefield — from Channing to
Embarcadero, Kellogg — from Byron to Middlefield, Fulton — from
Addison to Melville, Guinda — from Channing to Melville.
235Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 24
(WC-11000) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $290,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $2,829,500 $2,829,500
Other
Total Budget Request $2,829,500 $2,829,500
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012236
WC-14001WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 27
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 27
(WC-14001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2014-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram.
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in the Master Plan or video inspection
work as deficient and in need of enlargement or rehabilitation. Priority
will be given to areas identified by Public Works as targeted work zones
ensuring infrastructure coordination among the different City
departments.
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations for the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning and videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by
condition assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers;
and by hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 27 may include: High priority
replacement of 500 laterals, Page Mill — from 845 Page Mill to Ash, El
Camino Real — from Sheridan to Fernando, Lambert — from Park to
ECR, Fernando — from Park to ECR, Park — from Chestnut to Curtner,
Margarita — from Lane 66 to Park, Matadero — from Lane 66 to Park,
Wilton— from Lane 66 to Park.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $320,000 $320,000
Construction Costs $3,090,000 $3,090,000
Other
Total Budget Request $320,000 $3,090,000 $3,410,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 237
WC-15001WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 28
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 28
(WC-15001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2015-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in either the Master Plan or video
inspection work as deficient and in need of enlargement or
rehabilitation. Priority will be given to areas identified by Public Works
as targeted work zones ensuring infrastructure coordination among
the different City departments.
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations for the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning/videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by condition
assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers; and by
hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 28 may include: High priority
replacement of 500 laterals, W. Meadow - from Wilkie Way to Second,
Second - from Maclane to W. Meadow, Maclane - from Wilkie Way to
Second, La Selva - from Military Way to S. Magnolia, La Selva — from
2835 La Selva to Military, S. Magnolia - from Magnolia to La Selva,
Magnolia - from N. Magnolia to S. Magnolia, Donald - from Arastradero
to Georgia, Willmar - from Arastradero to Donald, Georgia - from
Hubbartt to Donald, Hubbartt - from Arastradero to Georgia,
Middlefield - from Ashton to East Meadow, Murdoch - from Ashton to
Alger, Alger - from Murdoch to Cowper, Ashton — from Murdoch to
Middlefield, Murdoch Court, Ventura - from El Camino Real to Park, El
Camino Real - from Wilton to Curtner, and Park - between Maclane and
Curtner.
238 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 28
(WC-15001) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $330,000 $330,000
Construction Costs $3,183,000 $3,183,000
Other
Total Budget Request $330,000 $3,183,000 $3,513,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 239
WC-16001WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 29 NEW
WW COLLECTION SYS. REHAB/AUG. PROJECT 29
(WC-16001)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2016-2018
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-18
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302
• Design Elements: This project will be coordi-
nated with Public Works Street Maintenance Pro-
gram
• Operating: This project will reduce future mainte-
nance expenses.
• Telecommunications: None.
Description: This project will implement high priority rehabilitation,
augmentation, and lateral replacement work, which reduces inflow of
rainfall and ground water into the collection system. The project will be
comprised of streets identified in either the Master Plan or video
inspection work as deficient and in need of enlargement or
rehabilitation. Priority will be given to areas identified by Public Works
as targeted work zones ensuring infrastructure coordination among
the different City departments.
Justification: The 2004 Collection System Master Plan update
indicated certain facilities are in need of enlargement to handle growth
and peak flows. The mains selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation are determined by the recommendations for the Master
Plan Study; by research and analysis of sewer main maintenance
records; by cleaning/videotaping of sanitary sewer mains; by condition
assessment; by real time flow monitoring of existing sewers; and by
hydraulic computer modeling.
Supplemental Information: Based on bids received, the WW
Collection Sys Rehab/Aug Project 29 may include: Forest — from Alma
to Middlefield, Hamilton — from Alma to Gilman, University — from
Waverley to Middlefield, Lytton — from Alma to Waverley, Byron —
from University to Hamilton, Webster — from Lytton to Hamilton, Tasso
— from Lytton to University, Cowper — from Lytton to Hamilton,
Kipling — from Lytton to University, Waverley — from Lytton to Forest,
Florence — from Lytton to University, Gilman — from Hamilton to
Forest, Bryant — from Lytton to Forest, Ramona — from Lytton to
Forest, Emerson — from Lytton to Forest, High — from Lytton to Forest,
Mariposa — from Churchill to Sequoia, Castillja — from Churchill to
Sequoia, Easements(3) - from Manzanita to Sequoia, Portola — from
Churchill to Sequoia, Churchill — from Portola to Castillja, Sequoia —
from Portola to Mariposa.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $340,000 $340,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $340,000 $340,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012240
WC-12002WW Lateral Pipe Bursting Machine NEW
WW LATERAL PIPE BURSTING MACHINE
(WC-12002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-44
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Operating: This project will reduce expenses for
installation of mains and services
Description: This project purchases a new pipe bursting machine for
WGW Operations to assist with installing new sanitary sewer lateral
services. This equipment include a complete stand-alone bursting
machine capable of installing 4" diameter main services.
Justification: Due to the cost of open trench digging of sewer laterals,
this new equipment will allow for the installation of sewer services by
minimizing the amount of escavation needed. This is accomplished by
bursting through the old sewer lateral and pulling a new
polyetheylene pipe behind it. Time and money is saved because
excavation and restoration are minimized.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $33,000 $33,000
Total Budget Request $33,000 $33,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Collection Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 241
Refuse Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012242
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 243
RF-11001Landfill Closure
LANDFILL CLOSURE (RF-11001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 4.83%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-7
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Negative Declaration.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will require funding for
postclosure maintenance.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for closure of the last remaining
open area at the landfill. An updated engineer's cost estimate was
developed as part of the final closure/postclosure maintenance plan in
March 2009. The cost estimate indicated $6.7 million was needed to
cap the remaining 51 acres of the landfill because no large identifiable
borrow sources of clay are available in the bay area. A geosynthetic
engineered alternative cap will need to be substituted.
Justification: The landfill is scheduled to close in 2012. This is the final
phase of that closure with all regulatory and environmental controls.
The estimated cost of the landfill closure and postclosure care are
recognized as a liability in the Refuse Fund's financial statements. This
liability is funded by the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $600,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 28,967
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $6,100,000 $6,100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $6,100,000 $6,100,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Refuse Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012244
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 245
Wastewater Treatment Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012246
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 247
WQ-04011Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT & RETROFIT
(WQ-04011)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2004-2018
• Overall Project Completion: 30%
• Percent Spent: 38.12%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Goal N-4, Policies N-25, C-
24
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
anticipated.
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: Possible exemption from
Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project assesses the structural condition of existing
plant facilities. Concrete and metal structures are evaluated for
evidence of damage, caused by corrosion, weathering, age and ground
movement. The prioritized list of repair and retrofit needs is being
addressed in ongoing annual design and construction projects.
Justification: Plant facilities are subject to many adverse conditions
including a highly corrosive environment and potential ground
movements. Facilities with repair and retrofit deficiencies need to be
returned to good structural condition to ensure that the plant
continues to provide safe and reliable plant operations through the
year 2020 and beyond.
Consultant Services Scope: See Supplemental Information.
Supplemental Information: Consultant provides design services,
prepares plans and specifications for bidding and construction, and
provides support services during construction. Construction support
includes response to contractor Requests for Information, submittal
review, inspection as needed, and similar. Consulting contracts and
construction contracts are typically one to two years in duration.
Successive annual repair and retrofit projects are competitively bid
anew.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $4,300,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 1,639,094
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $700,000 $1,050,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $3,950,000
Other
Total Budget Request $700,000 $1,050,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $3,950,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Treatment Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012248
WQ-80021Plant Equipment Replacement
PLANT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (WQ-80021)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 1980-2050
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-25
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: Possible exemption from
Design Review.
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project replaces, as necessary, plant equipment in
order to maintain treatment reliability.
Justification: Plant equipment requires periodic replacement in order
to maintain reliability. The US Environmental Protection Agency
regulations require equipment replacement funds to insure adequate
treatment reliability and equipment maintenance.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $500,000 $1,450,000 $1,500,000 $1,550,000 $5,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $1,450,000 $1,500,000 $1,550,000 $5,000,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Wastewater Treatment Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 249
Storm Drainage Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012250
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 251
Storm Drain Map
~ Legend
__ \ ...---road cente~ine
~ 2011 -12 Storm CIP -'l..;--2012 -13 storm CIP ...> ,.,--2013 -14 storm CIP ,/r,,· __
2014-15StormClP \ _
----,.,--2015 -16 Storm CIP ~J--~ Street Name ~\
~-< -..--.-~~_ ----=::----1..__._______--, -
'1' h. (:, t ~ • (
Pa l o A ll o
,".~""·n"OO """ ..... 'C •• """ •••. __ O' .. _,.".)O,,"',._ ••• _'""""' ...... ..-...-,
STORM DRAIN UTILITY
2011 -2016 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1lli~ map is a proc1Jct oIthe
CitycfPalc AltoGiS
, ..... "_ ....... , .. ,. ... _ ......... ,, ....... _ ...
th, C~ Of'"'''''''''''' '" ........ .., ...... '"'''.''''. "". c.. " .......
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012252
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 253
SD-11101Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
CHANNING AVENUE/LINCOLN AVENUE STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (SD-11101)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2010-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 5.33%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with street resurfacing program.
• Operating: This project will reduce the operating
costs of the Public Works Department.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project consists of the installation of 5,800 linear feet
of 36-inch to 60-inch diameter storm drain along Channing and Lincoln
Avenues.
Justification: This new storm drain trunk will improve drainage system
performance in the Green Gables, Walnut Grove, Community Center,
SOFA and Professorville neighborhoods by conveying storm runoff
more efficiently to the new San Francisquito Creek pump station. The
project will also reduce street flooding along Embarcadero Road by
intercepting storm runoff from several storm drain feeder lines that
currently flow to Embarcadero Road.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate increase
and input from the Storm Drain Oversight Committee. The project will
be reviewed with the Storm Drain Oversight Committee.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,715,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 91,435
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $1,590,000 $1,680,000 $1,430,000 $4,700,000
Other
Total Budget Request $1,590,000 $1,680,000 $1,430,000 $4,700,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012254
SD-06104Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station
CONNECT CLARA DRIVE STORM DRAINS TO
MATADERO PUMP STATION (SD-06104)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 100.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with street resurfacing program.
• Operating: This project will have negligible
increase in the operation expense.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project consists of the connection of an existing
gravity outfall system to the Matadero Storm Water Pump Station
through the installation of approximately 2,200 linear feet of 12-inch to
36-inch diameter storm drain along Clara Drive.
Justification: By connecting the gravity outfall to the existing pump
station, this project will allow the discharge of storm runoff into the
creek even when the creek water surface elevation is higher than the
nearby ground surface elevations.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. The project will be reviewed with the Storm Drain Oversight
Committee. The funds previously appropriated for this project in the
amount of $915,000 were reallocated to the San Francisquito Creek
Storm Drain Water Pump Station (SD-06102) via a budget amendment
ordinance approved by City Council in Fiscal Year 2008. Although
funding from the Storm Drainage Fund has not been identified for this
project, it remains under consideration for funding and
implementation in the future.
Since the ballot language for the storm drain rate increase election
commits the City to completing this project, the Finance Committee
has requested that staff consider the relative priority of this project as
compared to other Citywide capital needs and determine the
feasibility of funding this project through the General Fund
Infrastructure Reserve.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $6,411
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 6,411
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 255
SD-13002Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Lines Improvements
MATADERO CREEK STORM WATER PUMP STATION
AND TRUNK LINES IMPROVEMENTS (SD-13002)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Timeline: FY 2013-2017
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC,
ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with street resurfacing program.
• Operating: This project will result in reduced
storm drain maintenance expense.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project consists of the construction of upgrades to
the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and the trunk storm
drain pipelines that flow to the pump station. The Matadero Creek
Storm Water Pump Station serves a low-lying 1200-acre area of
southeastern Palo Alto.
Justification: This project will improve drainage system performance
in the Midtown and Palo Verde neighborhoods. The streets in this area
of the City are lower than the creek water level during storm events.
Upgrades to the pump station and the storm drain pipelines leading to
it will allow storm runoff to be pumped into Matadero Creek regardless
of the creek level.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. The project will be reviewed with the Storm Drain Oversight
Committee.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $315,000 $315,000
Construction Costs $1,840,000 $1,915,000 $3,755,000
Other
Total Budget Request $315,000 $1,840,000 $1,915,000 $4,070,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012256
SD-10101Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements
SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS (SD-10101)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with street resurfacing program.
• Operating: This project will result in reduced
operating costs for Public Works Department.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will improve the drainage within the
Southgate neighborhood. The project consists of the construction of
additional storm drain inlets, new pipelines, and curb and gutter
repairs to eliminate street ponding in the Southgate neighborhood.
This project will also accommodate storm runoff from the adjacent
Palo Alto High School property.
Justification: The entire Southgate neighborhood, bounded by
Churchill Avenue, the Caltrain Corridor, Park Boulevard, and El Camino
Real, drains to a single storm drain inlet at the corner of Mariposa and
Sequoia Avenues. There are no underground storm drain pipelines to
serve the neighborhood, and there are many sections of uneven curb
and gutter that pond water during rain events.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. The project will be reviewed with the Storm Drain Oversight
Committee.
Although funding from the Storm Drainage Fund has not been
identified for this project, it remains under consideration for funding
and implementation in the future. Staff is pursuing State/Federal grant
funding for this project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 257
SD-06101Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND
REHABILITATION (SD-06101)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Timeline: FY 2006-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with street resurfacing program.
• Operating: This project will result in reduced
storm drain maintenance expense.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project implements annual high-priority
replacement and rehabilitation projects that will help maintain the
integrity of the storm drain system. The project will consist of the
replacement or rehabilitation of deteriorated storm drain pipes,
manholes, and storm drain inlets, as identified by a previous video
inspection and condition assessment program.
Justification: The project will implement the recommendations
established by the 1993 Storm Drain Condition Assessment Report. The
specific pipes and drainage structures selected for replacement and/or
rehabilitation will be determined based on their 1993 condition score
and recommendations by field maintenance staff.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. The project will be reviewed with the Storm Drain Oversight
Committee.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $572,000 $590,000 $607,000 $626,000 $644,000 $3,039,000
Other
Total Budget Request $572,000 $590,000 $607,000 $626,000 $644,000 $3,039,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012258
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 259
OTHER FUND PROJECTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012260
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 261
Other Funds Overview - Capital
Improvement Program
ity’s Internal Service Funds, the Vehicle Replacement and Technology Funds, also manages
CIP projects.
TECHNOLOGY FUND
Technology projects enhance service delivery to the community and to City staff through the efficient
and effective implementation of information technology.
The Technology Fund has a total proposed CIP budget of $2.6 million in Fiscal Year 2012 - $1.0
million lower than the prior year. One reason is the Utility Bill Information Enhancement Project
which received $0.8 million in Fiscal Year 2011 and none in Fiscal Year 2012.
Projects proposed for FY 2012 include:
• Enhancements to the City's Utility Customer Billing System
• Implementation of state-of-the-art Library software
• Replacement of the City's voice communications systems
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
The Vehicle Replacement Fund provides maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment
used by all City departments. There are no funded CIP projects in Fiscal Year 2012.
In FY 2012, the City staff will continue its efforts to identify the optimal size and composition of the
City's vehicle and equipment fleet. These efforts have already resulted in reductions on the size of the
City's fleet and increased utilization. As this effort unfolds, replacements are limited to urgently
needed vehicles and equipment. As such, the Vehicle Replacement Fund has no proposed CIP budget
for FY 2012. Instead, vehicle replacements will be made on as needed-basis by Budget Amendment
Ordinance.
NEW PROJECTS
There are no new projects added to the Internal Service Funds in Fiscal Year 2012.
C
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012262
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 263
Vehicle Replacement Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012264
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 265
VR-16000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements NEW
SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENTS (VR-16000)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2016-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: none
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project requires ongoing mainte-
nance and replacement costs.
Description: This project will involve the scheduled replacement of
existing City fleet vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year 2016.
Justification: The ongoing replacement of City fleet vehicles and
equipment is prescribed by City Policy and Procedures Section 4-01.
The policy includes guidelines for these replacements based on age,
mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Timely replacement of
vehicles lowers maintenance costs, helps to maintain or even increase
the productivity of client departments, and allows the City to take
advantage of new technology.
Supplemental Information: 40 vehicles are scheduled for
replacement in Fiscal Year 2015, including 28 vehicles in the General
Fund at a cost of $1,870,500; nine vehicles in the Enterprise Funds at a
cost of $900,000, and three vehicles in the Internal Service Funds at a
cost of $103,600. The vehicle replacement schedule includes the
following quantities and vehicle types: five sedans; one police patrol
vehicle; seven pickup trucks and vans; three miscellaneous light trucks;
two fire apparatus; two street sweepers; one medium/heavy-duty
trucks; 14 pieces of miscellaneous equipment and five trailers.
Significant purchases include: two fire pumpers ($1,022,200); a 10-12
yard dump truck ($170,800); an underground cable tensioner
($100,500); a street sweeper ($255,200); a truck with utility body
($107,300), and a large backup generator ($218,400).
All purchases will be reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee prior to
the bidding process.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $2,874,100 $2,874,100
Total Budget Request $2,874,100 $2,874,100
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012266
VR-15000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENTS (VR-15000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2015-2015
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project requires ongoing mainte-
nance and replacement costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will involve the scheduled replacement of
existing City fleet vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year 2015.
Justification: The ongoing replacement of City fleet vehicles and
equipment is prescribed by City Policy and Procedures Section 4-01.
The policy includes guidelines for these replacements based on age,
mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Timely replacement of
vehicles lowers maintenance costs, helps to maintain or even increase
the productivity of client departments, and allows the City to take
advantage of new technology.
Supplemental Information: 53 vehicles are scheduled for
replacement in Fiscal Year 2015, including 34 vehicles in the General
Fund at a cost of $1,157,400, and 19 vehicles in the Enterprise Funds at
a cost of $2,596,700. The vehicle replacement schedule includes the
following quantities and vehicle types: one sedan; one police patrol
vehicle; one pickup truck; two fire apparatus; two street sweepers;
three medium/heavy-duty trucks; 36 miscellaneous equipment units
and seven trailers. Significant purchases include: two ambulances
($370,200): a medium truck with underground cable pulling winch and
crane ($260,400); two street sweepers ($504,200); two sewer flusher
trucks ($678,200), and four large backup generators ($918,600*).
*Funding will need to be provided by the Storm Drain and Wastewater
Treatment Funds.
All purchases will be reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee prior to
the bidding process.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $3,254,100 $3,254,100
Total Budget Request $3,254,100 $3,254,100
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 267
VR-13000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENTS (VR-13000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project requires ongoing mainte-
nance and replacement costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will involve the scheduled replacement of
existing City fleet vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year 2013.
Justification: The ongoing replacement of City fleet vehicles and
equipment is prescribed by City Policy and Procedures Section 4-01.
The policy includes guidelines for these replacements based on age,
mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Timely replacement of
vehicles lowers maintenance costs, helps to maintain or even increase
the productivity of client departments, and allows the City to take
advantage of new technology.
Supplemental Information: 16 vehicles are scheduled for
replacement in Fiscal Year 2013, including 10 vehicles in the General
Fund at a cost of $654,000 and 6 vehicles in the Enterprise Funds at a
cost of $677,500. The vehicle replacement schedule includes the
following quantities and vehicle types: one sedan; one turf mower; six
police patrol vehicles; 3 pickup trucks and vans; one street sweepers;
two medium/heavy-duty trucks. Significant purchases include: a
wildland fire truck ($300,000) and a 55’ material handling aerial
($267,000).
All purchases will be reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee prior to
the bidding process.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $1,331,500 $1,331,500
Total Budget Request $1,331,500 $1,331,500
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012268
VR-14000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements
SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENTS (VR-14000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2014-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project requires ongoing mainte-
nance and replacement costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will involve the scheduled replacement of
existing City fleet vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year 2014.
Justification: The ongoing replacement of City fleet vehicles and
equipment is prescribed by City Policy and Procedures Section 4-01.
The policy includes guidelines for these replacements based on age,
mileage accumulation, and obsolescence. Timely replacement of
vehicles lowers maintenance costs, helps to maintain or even increase
the productivity of client departments, and allows the City to take
advantage of new technology.
Supplemental Information: 43 vehicles are scheduled for
replacement in Fiscal Year 2014, including 34 vehicles in the General
Fund at a cost of $1,876,500, and 9 vehicles in the Enterprise Funds at a
cost of $305,500. The vehicle replacement schedule includes the
following quantities and vehicle types: 14 sedans; 11 pickup trucks;
three miscellaneous light trucks; two fire apparatus; 13 miscellaneous
equipment units and two trailers. Significant purchases include: a fire
heavy rescue truck ($650,000); a wildland fire truck ($300,000); a fire
battalion command vehicle ($100,000); a tow truck ($135,000), and a
dump truck with crane ($180,000).
All purchases will be reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee prior to
the bidding process.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $2,182,000 $2,182,000
Total Budget Request $2,182,000 $2,182,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 269
Technology Fund
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012270
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 271
TE-99010Acquisition of New Computers
ACQUISITION OF NEW COMPUTERS (TE-99010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-10
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the acquisition of new computers for
the City. This is a placeholder for acquisition of new computers that are
outside the replacement schedule.
Justification: The project addresses the need to acquire new
computers. The City has a schedule to replace existing computers.
However, in cases where there is a need to acquire computers outside
the replacement schedule, this project pays for the acquisition. The
Enterprise Funds reimburse the Technology Fund for their share of the
cost of the acquisition.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
Total Budget Request $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Technology Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012272
TE-11005Implementation of New Utility Rate Structures
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW UTILITY RATE
STRUCTURES (TE-11005)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Supports Goal N-4 and N-9
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Not a project under CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This is a software modification project for the customer
information and billing system. The project will require significant
programming to upgrade the SAP billing system allowing for new and
revised rate structures. This may include new configuration
development, testing of the calculation algorithm and changes to the
invoice. Potential rate structure changes include new Residential Time-
of-Use (TOU) rates; new Electric Vehicle rates and other tiering changes
to existing rates schedules.
Justification: In support of the City’s Climate Protection Goals the
Utility will be proposing new and revised rate structures that provide
price incentives for customers to conserve resources.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $100,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000
Revenues: $100,000 $100,000
Source of Funds:Technology Fund with the following reimbursements: Electric Fund($61,941); Gas
Fund($23,856); Water Fund($14,203)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 273
TE-11001Library Computer System Software
LIBRARY COMPUTER SYSTEM SOFTWARE (TE-11001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Program T-10
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Library
Advisory Commiss
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: Annual software maintenance esti-
mated at approximately $32,000.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will purchase and implement state of the art
software or software services to provide the functionality of the
Library’s current integrated library system (ILS) and upgrade it. The ILS
performs and manages most of the library transactions and operations,
including circulation of books and other materials, customer accounts
and collections databases; the public library catalog; processes
associated with acquiring and cataloging items for the collection; and
statistical reporting.
Justification: The average life expectancy of an ILS is about seven
years. The Library’s most recent ILS was installed in 2005. The project
and associated costs are detailed in the Library’s technology plan
completed in 2009 and reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $350,000 $350,000
Other
Total Budget Request $350,000 $350,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Technology Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012274
TE-06001Library RFID Implementation
LIBRARY RFID IMPLEMENTATION (TE-06001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2009-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 3.95%
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Program C-12, Policy B-16
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will incur operating costs
once installed.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will implement radio frequency
identification (RFID) technology for use in circulating and managing
library collections. The first year of the project, consisting of a feasibility
study and market research to cost out library-wide implementation,
was completed in 2006.
Justification: Implementation of RFID technology and automated
materials handling (AMH) equipment will facilitate the use of self-
service options and will help staff cope with increasing workloads. It
will improve staff efficiency by enabling faster handling of check-out
and check-in of books and other library materials. RFID and AMH will
enable staff to return materials to the shelves more quickly, reduce
repetitive motions and resulting injuries for staff, and free staff to
provide direct customer service.
Supplemental Information: The project will be phased to correspond
with the construction of the library bond measure projects. In FY 2011
and FY 2012, all items in the library collection will be equipped with
RFID tags and the self-check machines will be upgraded to use these
tags instead of barcodes for circulation. The Library technology plan
recommends installing AMH equipment in the three busiest libraries
— the new Mitchell Park, the renovated Main, and Children’s. The AMH
equipment for Children’s will be funded by this project and installed in
FY 2013. The AMH equipment for the Mitchell Park and Main libraries
will be funded by the library bond proceeds and installed as these
facilities are constructed. This project responds to the City Council’s
direction to employ technology solutions in the Library. The project
plan and costs are detailed in the Library’s technology plan completed
in 2009 and reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $445,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 17,586
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $150,000 $215,000 $365,000
Total Budget Request $150,000 $215,000 $365,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Technology Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 275
TE-05000Radio Infrastructure Replacement
RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT (TE-05000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2008-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 30%
• Percent Spent: 20.79%
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-9
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Possibly
ARB review
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Possible exemption.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project will incur operating
expense, and the budget is included in the Police
Department.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project will fund annual replacement of various
items in the City’s telecommunications infrastructure inventory in
accordance with a life-cycle replacement schedule. Having reliable and
effective telecommunications (radio) infrastructure is vital to public
safety. In Fiscal Year 2011, the City in partnership with the other cities
and the County, will replace all radio infrastructure and construct a new
regional 700MHz radio system. The new system will facilitate seamless
interoperability
Justification: The Department continues to replace infrastructure
equipment that makes up the Police, Fire, Public Works, Utilities, and
Animal Services radio systems in accordance with the ongoing
replacement schedule that began in Fiscal Year 2005. The Department
carefully evaluates each piece of equipment and has created a multi-
year, ongoing replacement schedule. The Fiscal Year 2011 figure is an
estimate based on existing equipment value and will be finalized in
Fiscal Year 2010 with detailed projections.
Supplemental Information: This project will take advantage of the
foundation of hardware, software and knowledge in the region, as well
as provide integration across what are now disparate radio systems in
the Bay Area. One of the top Homeland Security national priorities is
interoperable communications. This new radio system will ensure
seamless voice interoperability in Palo Alto across disciplines (fire,
police, public works, utilities, etc.) and across jurisdictional boundaries
(other cities and the 10 Bay Area counties). The cost will be offset,
wherever possible, with federal homeland security funds. The
Enterprise Funds and Stanford University share proportionately in the
cost of this project.
276 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012
RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT
(TE-05000) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $2,430,980
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 505,464
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Other
Total Budget Request $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Revenues: $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $180,000
Source of Funds:
Technology Fund with the following reimbursements: Electric Fund($25,000); Gas
Fund($25,000); Stanford($80,000); Wastewater Collection Fund($25,000); Water
Fund($25,000)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 277
TE-00010Telephone System Replacement
TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT (TE-00010)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2007-2012
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 2.07%
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies B-16, C-9
• Potential Board/Commission Review: None
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: This project requires maintenance,
and the budget is included in the Technology Fund.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project funds the services of a consultant to conduct
an analysis and assessment of current and future requirements for
voice-related communications within the City, and to acquire the new
system. Requirements will be determined for all City departments, and
include telecommunications, the telephone switch network (PBX),
connectivity to the data communications network, implementation
strategies for voice over the fiber backbone, and voice mail
requirements and applications.
Justification: The reliability of the City's telephone and
telecommunications services is critical to city operations.
Telecommunications technology has developed significantly in recent
years. Newer switches will offer more compatibility, provide greater
functionality, and require less space and power than the current
equipment. As resources are distributed throughout the City, the PBX
system will be required to provide greater flexibility to in-house staff
and to remote locations.
Supplemental Information: The Enterprise Funds share
proportionately in the costs of this project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,230,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 25,421
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $1,421,842 $1,421,842
Total Budget Request $1,421,842 $1,421,842
Revenues: $530,507 $530,507
Source of Funds:
Technology Fund with the following reimbursements: Electric Fund($158,028); Fiber Optics
Fund($8,531); Gas Fund($79,206); Refuse Fund($56,503); Storm Drainage Fund($14,644);
Wastewater Collection Fund($40,570); Wastewater Treatment Fund($105,393); Water
Fund($67,632)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012278
TE-11004Utilities Customer Bill Redesign
UTILITIES CUSTOMER BILL REDESIGN (TE-11004)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Supports Goal N-4 and N-9
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is not under CEQA.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The design of the current Utilities customer bill has not
been substantially revised for approximately fifteen years, with bill
modification and redesign specifically removed during the
development and implementation of the Utilities SAP system to
minimize customer confusion arising from changes to the billing
system. Even when new rate structures are designed, the old billing
format would limit the implementation of the rate design options that
are currently available to Utilities customers.
Justification: A complete overhaul of the Utilities bill would allow
both new and more accurate information to be presented to the
customer in both the traditional paper and electronic (My Utilities
Account) versions. Updated bill programming would allow
presentation of comparative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the
customer's energy consumption, more accurate historical
consumption and cost data, detailed description of billing
adjustments, status of deposits, and amounts for payment
arrangements.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $750,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $150,000
Revenues: $150,000 $150,000
Source of Funds:
Technology Fund with the following reimbursements: Electric Fund($73,713); Fiber Optics
Fund($565); Gas Fund($28,390); Refuse Fund($17,231); Storm Drainage Fund($3,685); Waste-
water Collection Fund($9,514); Water Fund($16,902)
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 279
TE-10001Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements
UTILITIES CUSTOMER B ILLING SYSTEM CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENTS (TE-10001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2010-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Program C-12
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: None
• Operating: Annual maintenance cost is included
in the SAP ERP maintenance budget in the Technol-
ogy Fund.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This is a software related project to enhance the Utilities
billing modules in SAP. The primary purpose is to enhance the system
to include new legislation and legal requirements. This project will also
be utilized to improve existing system business processes where
efficiencies or changes are required. Recent plans include further
securing customer sensitive data, improvements to the CSR’s most
commonly used SAP screens, and to begin a Utilities Technology
Strategic Plan.
Justification: After the Utilities billing software implementation in May
2009, staff identified ongoing changes required to add necessary
legislative and regulatory requirements. This project also includes
enhancement to online e-services, bill presentation, quality controls,
process integration, new functionality, enhanced reporting
capabilities, and data accessibility. These may require business process
re-engineering, utilities bill updates, and/or rate adjustments.
Consultant Services Scope: Scoping study will determine plan and
costs for implementation.
Supplemental Information: In May 2009, the ten year-old Utilities
Customer Information System (BANNER) was replaced with the SAP
Industry-specific Solution for Utilities. This project is necessary in order
to provide software system updates to meet customer, regulatory, and
governing requirements. This project is in response to Council
requests regarding enhancements to the Utilities billing system. The
Enterprise Funds share proportionately in the costs of this project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $350,000
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $150,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,150,000
Other
Total Budget Request $150,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,150,000
Revenues: $150,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,150,000
Source of Funds:
Technology Fund with the following reimbursements: Electric Fund($565,133); Fiber Optics
Fund($4,333); Gas Fund($217,658); Refuse Fund($132,107); Storm Drainage Fund($28,249);
Wastewater Collection Fund($72,938); Water Fund($129,582)
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012280
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 281
Supplemental Information
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012282
General Fund Infrastructure Backlog
Summary
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 283
Gene
ral Fund Infrastructure Backlog Summary
Current
Backlog
Adopted
General
Fund CIP
Budget
Unfunded
Backlog
FY 2008 -
FY 2013
FY 2008 -
FY 2013
FY 2008 -
FY 2013
FY 2014 -
FY 2018
FY 2019-
FY 2023
FY 2024 -
FY 2028
Streets
Annual Program $24,682,259 $10,975,000 $13,707,259 $16,201,988 $12,123,019 $10,832,987
Transportation $850,000 $850,000 $0 $2,867,934 $1,190,000 $1,763,720
Traffic Signals $1,115,000 $1,115,000 $0 $1,225,000 $1,400,000 $1,557,500
Medians $468,000 $468,000 $0 $25,200 $0
1 $0
Street lights $650,000 $650,000 $0 $910,000 $910,000 $910,000
Street Furniture $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $0
1 $175,000
Sidewalks
Annual Maintenance $5,100,000 $3,189,666 $1,910,334 $5,432,925 $5,844,891 $5,848,777
District Repairs $9,240,106 $4,910,334 $4,329,772 $2,667,075 $2,255,109 $2,251,223
Bridges/Culverts $2,625,490 $0 $2,625,490 $912,100
1 $2,220,575 $1,273,650
Parks $6,890,591 $5,838,000 $1,052,591 $3,697,005 $7,743,820 $4,354,700
Open Space $5,086,412 $1,773,000 $3,313,412 $4,624,026 $3,786,527 $2,050,156
City Buildings
Structures $93,100,667 $32,074,584
2 $61,026,083 $10,911,139 $7,163,687 $8,851,169
Parking Lots $2,014,299 $910,000 $1,104,299 $4,704,935 $3,401,469 $1,788,206
Site Improvements $550,000 $550,000 $0 $294,700
1 $1,188,460 $1,460,609
PAUSD Facilities $860,000 $860,000 $0 $334,712 $150,500 $956,900
Subtotals $153,232,824 $64,163,584 $89,069,240 $54,983,739 $49,378,057 $44,074,597
Total Backlog $153,232,824 $54,983,739 $49,378,057 $44,074,597
Total $301,669,218
Costs = construction cost x 1.4 for project development (excluding annual street program and sidewalks)
Costs are in 2009 dollars, inflation not included
1 No major work is needed due to life cycle analysis
General Fund Infrastructure Backlog Summary
Projected Future Backlog FY 2014
through FY 2028
SOURCE: CMR:167:08 updated on May 13, 2009
2 This number includes Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $10,754,584 for the Public Safety Building,
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, and Civic Center Infrastructure Improvement Projects
Infrastructure Future Needs - Backlog
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012284
Infrastr
uct
ure
Fut
ure
Nee
ds -
Bac
klo
g
Other Major Infrastructure Projects Project Cost1
MSC Building Replacement $93,000,000
Fire Station 3 $6,700,000
Fire Station 4 $7,500,000
Animal Shelter $6,930,000
Junior Museum $735,000
Charleston Road Corridor $5,700,000
Arastradero Road Corridor $4,300,000
Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000
Bxybee Park Phase II $3,625,000
Los Altos Treatment Plant Clean-up & Preparation2 $2,040,000
San Antonio Road Median & Roadway Improvements Phase II $1,500,000
Roth Building Restrooms $250,000
Public Safety Building $60,000,000
$208,280,000
1 2009 Dollars
2 This is the general fund portion only.
Notes:
Source: CMR:167:08 updated on May 13, 2009
Infrastructure Future Needs - Backlog
This infrastructure backlog summary was last updated in May 2009. Staff is in the process
of updating this list and will have it completed in summer 2011. Since its last update, certain
projects identified above have been funded and are either already completed or are currently
in progress. These projects include the Lytton Plaza and the San Antonio Road Median &
Roadway Improvement Phase II. The Charleston Arastradero Corridor is planned in FY 2013
through FY 2015 with planned funding of $4 million, while the Public Safety Building is added
to the list due to the lack of funding source. This list does not include future infrastructure
such as an intermodal transit center and Caltrain grade separations for pedestrians.
Infrastructure Future Needs - Backlog
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 285
General Fund Capital Improvement Program Expenditures Summarized
by Project Category - Fiscal Years 2007-2011
(in thousands)
$5
,
9
2
$3
0 $6
1
2 $1
,
3
8 $2
,
1
0
$7
,
9
2
$5
,
7
9
$2
,
6
5
$4
5
3
$2
,
9
7
$3
,
6
3
$5
,
8
5
$1
0
,
0
8
$2
,
5
0
$1
1
0
$4
4
0 $1
,
7
3
$6
,
2
2
$9
,
3
1
$2
,
3
5
$2
9
1
$7
$3
,
4
6
$5
,
8
5$7
,
1
7
$4
1
$0
$7
4
6
$1
,
1
4
$3
,
5
6
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
FY 2007 $5,924 $30 $612 $1,387 $2,107 $7,926
FY 2008 $5,797 $2,654 $453 $2,977 $3,630 $5,859
FY 2009 $10,082 $2,503 $110 $440 $1,733 $6,227
FY 2010 $9,312 $2,353 $291 $7 $3,460 $5,855
FY 2011 $7,179 $41 $0 $746 $1,143 $3,560
Totals $38,294 $7,581 $1,466 $5,557 $12,073 $29,427
Buildings &
Facilities
Land & Land
Improvements Miscellaneous Non-Infrastructure
Management Plan
Parks & Open
Space
Streets &
Sidewalks
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012286
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 287
INDEX
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012288
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Index by Project Number
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 289
Index by Project Number
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
AC-12001 Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
AC-86017 Art in Public Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
LB-11000 Furniture and Technology for Library Measure N Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and Ponds Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
OS-07000 Foothills Park Road Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
PE-06010 City Parks Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
PE-06011 Street Median Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
PE-10002 Ventura Community Center and Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave. Irrigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center Facilities Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
PE-14000 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
PE-86070 Street Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
PF-10002 Lot J Structure Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop Space Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Preventer Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
PF-12005 Council Conference Room Renovations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical System Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electrical Systems Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
PF-16000 Cubberley Community Center Site-Wide Electrical Systems Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
Index by Project Number
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012290
PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements (formerly PE-07001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements (formerly PE-11004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Netting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
PL-00026 Safe Routes to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
PL-04010 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan - Implementation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
PL-11002 California Avenue - Transit Hub Corridor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and Striping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation and Security Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
ELECTRIC FUND
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
EL-08001 UG District 42 - Embarcadero Rd. (Between Emerson & Middlefield). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12 kV Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
EL-10009 Street Light System Conversion Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
EL-11002 St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
EL-11010 UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue . . . . . 175
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV Tie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
EL-13002 Relocate Quarry Road/Hopkins Substations 60 kV Line (Lane A & B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12 kV Conversion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
EL-89031 Communications System Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
EL-98003 Electric System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Index by Project Number
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 291
FIBER OPTICS FUND
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network System Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
GAS FUND
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreimbursed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
GS-10001 GMR - Project 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
GS-12001 GMR - Project 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
GS-13001 GMR - Project 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
GS-14003 GMR-Project 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
GS-15000 GMR-Project 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
GS-16000 GMR Project 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
REFUSE FUND
RF-11001 Landfill Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
SD-06101 Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
SD-06104 Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
SD-11101 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
SD-13002 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Lines Improvements . . . . . . . . . 255
TECHNOLOGY FUND
TE-00010 Telephone System Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
TE-10001 Utilities Customer Billing System Continuous Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
TE-11001 Library Computer System Software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
TE-11004 Utilities Customer Bill Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
TE-11005 Implementation of New Utility Rate Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
TE-99010 Acquisition of New Computers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Index by Project Number
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012292
VR-15000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
VR-16000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
WATER FUND
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
WS-09000 Seismic Water System Upgrades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
WS-13001 WMR - Project 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
WS-14001 WMR - Project 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
WS-15002 WMR - Project 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
WS-80013 Water System Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
WS-80015 Water Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 293
Glossary
KEY BUDGET TERMS
Adjusted Budget: The adjusted budget represents the adopted budget including changes made during
the fiscal year.
Adopted Budget: The adopted budget is the annual City budget approved by the City Council on or
before June 30.
Appropriation: The allocation of an expense budget for a particular project or program usually for a
specific period of time.
Capital Budget: A plan of proposed capital outlays and the means of financing them for the current
fiscal period. In a two-year budget, the second year of the Capital Improvement Program is adopted-
in-concept.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The Capital Improvement Fund accounts for projects related to
the acquisition, expansion, or rehabilitation of the City’s buildings, equipment, parks, streets, and
other public infrastructure.
Capital Projects Fund: A fund created to account for all resources to be used for the construction or
acquisition of designated fixed assets by a governmental unit except those financed by proprietary or
fiduciary funds.
Comprehensive Plan: The Palo Alto Comprehensive 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. Its focus is on the
physical form of the City. The Proposed Budget integrates the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan into the
budget process.
Cost Accounting: The branch of accounting that provides for the assembling and recording of all the
elements of cost incurred to accomplish a purpose, to carry on an activity or operation, or to complete
a unit of work or a specific job.
Enterprise Funds: Enterprise funds account for City operations which are financed and operated in a
manner similar to private enterprise. Costs of providing service to the public are covered by user
charges, grant funds, and impact fees. The City of Palo Alto owns and operates its own utilities with
the exception of refuse hauling and collection, which is contracted with an outside firm.
Fiscal Agent: A bank or other corporate fiduciary that performs the function of paying, on behalf of
the governmental unit, or other debtor, interest on debt or principal of debt when due.
Fiscal Year: A 12-month period of time to which the annual budget applies and at the end of which a
governmental unit determines its financial position and the results of operations.
Fixed Assets: Assets of a long-term character that are intended to continue to be held or used, such as
land, buildings, machinery, furniture, and other equipment.
Glossary
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012294
Funds: Local government budgets are made up of funds, which help to organize and account for restricted
resources. Each fund is considered a separate accounting entity.
Governmental Funds: A generic classification used to refer to all funds other than proprietary and
fiduciary funds. The capital projects fund is one example of the type of funds referred to as
“Governmental Funds”.
Infrastructure Assets: Roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets, sidewalks, drainage systems, and
lighting systems installed for the common good.
Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP): A portion of the General Fund capital improvement program
with the focus of rehabilitating the City's infrastructure. In 1998-99, an outside consultant on the
City's infrastructure prepared a report known as the Adamson report. Within this report the City's
infrastructure was catalogued and ranked based on when the infrastructure needed to be upgraded or
replaced and the cost for each item. At that time, the City Council decided to establish a plan using the
Adamson report as a guide to both timeline and cost.
Internal Service Funds: These funds provide services to City departments and recover their costs
through user charges. The Vehicle Replacement Fund is an Internal Service Fund managing the
replacement and maintenance of the City fleet.
Method of Accounting: The City's Governmental and Proprietary Funds budget are developed using
a modified accrual basis of accounting, with revenues being recorded when measurable and available,
and expenditures recorded when the liability is incurred.
Operating Transfer: Amounts transferred between funds; not considered a revenue or expense. For
example, legally authorized transfers from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the
resources are to be expended.
Ongoing Projects: These are continuous projects ( e.g. water meter replacements) that have no
definitive beginning or ending dates and receive ongoing funding to reflect the continuing
replacement cycles or commitments.
Pay-As-You-Go-Basis: A term used to describe the financial policy of a governmental unit that
finances all of its capital outlays from current revenues rather than by borrowing.
Proposed Budget: The proposed budget is the budget that is sent to the Finance Committee by the
City Manager. The proposed budget, including changes made by the Finance Committee during their
review, is approved by the Council and then becomes the adopted budget.
Reimbursements: Interfund transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures or
expenses initially made from it but that properly apply to another fund. For example, the Enterprise
Funds reimburse the Technology Fund for CIP projects that the Enterprise Funds benefit from.
Reserve: Represents the portion of fund balance set aside for financing future capital improvements or
the outlay of capital projects in any given year, and addressing one-time emergency needs.
Glossary
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 295
Revenues: Revenues include compensation received by the project for specific services to the public
(external revenues), as well as revenues received from other funds (internal revenues). An example of
internal revenue includes the Electric Fund reimbursing a Technology project for the technological resources
that it will provide.
Special Revenue Funds: These funds account for the proceeds derived from specific revenue sources that are
legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. The Street Improvement Fund (SIF) is a Special
Revenue Fund that derives its funding from state gas tax revenues. Capital appropriations from the SIF must
be spent on the construction and maintenance of the road network system of the City.
Americans with Disabilities Act
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012296
For information contact:
ADA Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329-2550
Americans with Disabilities Act
Visit the City’s Website at:
www.CityofPaloAlto.org
In compliance with
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990,
this document may be provided
in other accessible formats.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 297
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Municipal Clerks Week May 1 thru 7, 2011
WHEREAS, the Office of the City Clerk (Clerk), a time honored and vital part
of local government exists throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the
local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and
WHEREAS, Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and
impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local
government and community; and
WHEREAS, Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the
affairs of the Office of the City Clerk through participation in education programs,
seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and
international professional organizations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sidney A. Espinosa, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto,
on behalf of the City Council do hereby recognize the week of May 1 through May
7, 2011, as City Clerks Week, and further extend appreciation to our City Clerk,
Donna Grider and her Staff and to all City Clerks for the vital services they
perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.
Presented: May 2011
______________________________
Sidney A. Espinosa
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 2, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Historic Resources
Board for Four Terms ending on May 31, 2014
Attached are four applications submitted for four terms, ending on May 31, 2014 on the Historic Resources Board.
At the Council Meeting on Monday, May 2, 2011 the City Council may:
· select candidates from the existing pool to be interviewed for the Historic Resources Board, with the interview date to
be determined, or· select to reopen the recruiting process in an effort to increase the applicant pool.
The applicants are as follows:
1.Martin Bernstein2.Roger Kohler3.Michael Makinen
4.Scott Smithwick
REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
·applications (PDF)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 4/27/2011 11:48 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1526)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 1526)
Summary Title: Approval of Contract Amendments for City Hall CIP
Title: Approval of Four Contract Documents for the Civic Center Infrastructure
Improvements Project (Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002): (1)
Change Order with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the Amount of $194,817 for
Restroom Remodeling for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $656,130; (2)
Change Order with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $62,747 for
a Data Center Cooling System Upgrade for a Total Contract Amount Not to
Exceed $1,536,542; (3) Change Order with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the
Amount of $262,076 for Electrical Panel Replacements and Circuit Tracing for a
Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $1,175,476;and (4) Contract Amendment
No. Two to Contract No. C08124310 with Cambridge CM, Inc. in the Amount of
$83,180 for Extended Construction Management Services for a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $1,282,390
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a change
order with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the amount of $194,817 for restroom
remodeling for the Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements Project (PF-01002).
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more additional change orders to the contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc.for
related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project,
the total value of which shall not exceed $39,000.
3.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a change
order with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in the amount of $62,747 for a Data
Center cooling system upgrade for the Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements
Project (PF-01002).
4.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 1526)
more additional change orders to the contract with ACCO Engineered Systems,
Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the
project, the total value of which shall not exceed $12,500.
5.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a change
order with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the amount of $262,076 for electrical
panel replacements and existing electrical circuit tracing for the Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements Project (PF-01002).
6.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more additional change orders to the contract with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. for
related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project,
the total value of which shall not exceed $52,400.
7.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment
No. Two to Contract No. C08124310 (Attachment A) with Cambridge CM, Inc. in
the amount of $83,180 to provide extended construction management services
for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,282,390 for the Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements Project (PF-01002).
Background
As part of the City’s ongoing capital infrastructure maintenance program, a complete
building system study of the Civic Center was completed in fiscal year 2003. Following
the recommendations of the study, various building renovation projects, including
elevator upgrades, electrical system upgrades, generator replacement, and mechanical
system upgrades, have been implemented since 2005. A contract for construction
management services was awarded to Cambridge CM, Inc. in March 2008 to assist City
staff with project management of a set of more complex, building-wide modifications
(CMR:160:08). The first construction phase for the major work, Bid Package 1, was
awarded in August 2008 (CMR:334:08) and completed in July 2009. The second and
final phase of the work, Bid Package 2, which included the upgrade of the balance of
the building’s mechanical and electrical systems and exterior painting and sealing was
awarded as four separate prime contracts in July 2010 (CMR:320:10). These four
contracts were awarded to Nexgen Builders, Inc. for general work items and finishes,
Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. for exterior painting and sealing, ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc. for mechanical, plumbing, and fire sprinkler control
modifications, and H. A. Bowen Electric, Inc. for electrical and fire alarm modifications.
The total amount of the four contracts, including contingencies, was $3,491,042.
Utilization of multiple prime contractors provided reduced overhead cost for the
specialty contractors and increased competition for each contract, yielding a savings of
$2,945,463 below the original engineer’s estimates, which totaled $6,436,505. The
basic scope of work contained in these four contracts is progressing well and is
scheduled to be completed by mid-June 2011.
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 1526)
During the course of construction during the past year,however, several additional
building deficiencies and upgrade opportunities have been identified. The cost of this
newly-identified work exceeds the contract amounts authorized by Council at the time
of the original contract awards. The recommended work beyond the original project
scope is the subject of the contract change orders discussed below.
Discussion
Staff recommends that this additional work be completed as soon as possible in order
to take full advantage of the continuing favorable construction cost climate and
minimize future inconvenience to both staff and the public. Some of the work consists
of deferred maintenance items that were not included in the original scope of work for
Bid Package 2 due to assumed budget constraints. The low bids received for the work,
and the resulting project budget surplus, provide an unexpected opportunity to
complete all of the major work recommended in the 2003 Civic Center Infrastructure
Study, with the exception of the Police Wing work (which is intentionally being deferred
pending identification of a final option for a Public Safety Building) and the replacement
of the main tower roof (which is not yet fully scoped). Staff recommends that the extra
work be performed by the current contractors through the issuance of change orders to
the original contracts, rather than rebidding the work, for several reasons. First of all,
the current contractors are very familiar with the details of the work to be done and are
already mobilized at the site, which will allow them to perform the work more efficiently
and for a lower price. Staff is also very satisfied with the craftsmanship,
responsiveness, and performance of the contractors to-date and is confident in their
ability to perform the remaining work. Lastly, utilizing the existing contracts will avoid a
lengthy bidding process and thus allow the work to be completed as soon as possible,
resulting in lower prices and less disruption to the building occupants.
The scope of each proposed change order and its associated costs are discussed in
detail below. Staff is also requesting additional contingency authority for each contract
in order to enable staff to address the potential for additional unforeseen work. As
noted in the staff report for the award of the original Bid Package 2 contracts, there is
an increased likelihood of additional required repairs or system replacements on
building renovation projects as compared to new construction. In addition, since a
project in an occupied facility requires the contractors to complete their work during off-
hours, the majority of change orders for the Civic Center Renovation Project are billed
at a premium rate for night or weekend work. Therefore, staff is requesting a twenty
percent contingency, rather than the customary 10-15 percent amount, for all increased
contracts.
Change Order for Restroom Remodeling (Nexgen Builders, Inc.)
Nexgen Builders, Inc. is the primary general contractor on the current Civic Center
Renovation project. Their primary responsibilities have been concentrated on the
general demolition and reconstruction work necessitated by the mechanical and
electrical upgrades to the interior of the building. The scope of work for the proposed
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 1526)
contract change order would include major cosmetic upgrades to the restrooms on
Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Attachment B). The upgrades would consist of new floor
and wall tile, replacement of the restroom partitions, upgraded lavatory counter tops,
and a fresh coat of paint. The need for this comprehensive upgrade became evident
while attempting to restore the restrooms following the demolition work that was a
necessary part of the current mechanical/electrical upgrade. The construction activity
in the current phase, as well as the various maintenance tasks performed over the
decades, has left these 40-year-old restrooms with a patchwork of mismatched tiles,
outdated fixtures and partitions, and dilapidated counters. By comparison, the
restrooms on Levels A, Mezzanine, and 8 were either built at a later date than the
original restrooms or have been modified in subsequent later years during ongoing
accessibility upgrades. Staff recommends approval of a contract change order for a
comprehensive upgrade of the selected restrooms in order to reduce future
maintenance costs and to provide a level of uniformity to the restrooms. The costs
associated with the contract change order with Nexgen Builders, Inc. for restroom
remodeling is $194,817. In addition, staff requests that the authorized contingency for
contract C11136276 be increased by $39,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed
$656,130.
Change Order for Computer Room Mechanical System Upgrade (ACCO Engineered
Systems, Inc.)
This scope of work for the proposed contract change order for ACCO Engineered
Systems, Inc., the mechanical contractor for the project, includes the addition of a
cooling unit in the Information Technology Data Center/Server Room on Level 2
(Attachment C). During the course of the project, the construction management team
noted a design deficiency in the cooling system for this critical facility. The Data Center
is served by two separate air conditioning systems -a very inefficient unit located on
Level 8, and a second unit mounted below the Center’s flooring system that blows
chilled air directly onto the server components. These two systems are further
supplemented by three portable cooling units during periods of high demand in the
summer months. The temperature in the Data Center, which houses computer server
equipment that stores information critical for the operation of all City departments,
must be maintained within a narrow range in order to prevent equipment failure. Staff
proposes the installation of an additional subfloor-mounted cooling unit that will work in
conjunction with the existing subfloor unit to cool the Data Center more efficiently and
at lower cost than the existing system. This combination would allow for the
elimination of the unit housed on Level 8, which currently runs continuously and blows
air inefficiently through ceiling-mounted air diffusers. The installation of the new
cooling unit would also eliminate the current need for the three portable units, which
consume more electricity than the permanent units. This would also free up one or
more of the portable units to be utilized as a redundant unit for the Police Department
computer server room. The costs associated with the contract change order with ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc. for the Data Center cooling system upgrade is $62,747. In
addition, staff requests that the authorized contingency for contract C11136279 be
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 1526)
increased by $12,500, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,536,542.
Change Order for Electrical Panel Replacements (H. A. Bowen Electric, Inc.)
The scope of work for the proposed contract change order with H. A. Bowen Electric,
Inc., the project electrical contractor, would provide for the replacement of 22 electric
distribution panels and the tracing of existing electrical circuits (Attachment D).
Twenty-four (24)other electric distribution panels were already designated for
replacement as part of the current Civic Center Renovation project. The construction
manager has recently notified staff that some of the remaining panels have not passed
inspections by the City’s building inspector due to non-compliant grounding and phasing
concerns. Simply put, the electrical panels are not able to pass inspections due to
failing components, a condition characteristic of the wear and tear imparted on the
system over its decades of service. A typical problematic symptom is that the
contractor has been unable to tighten down new wires routed to some of these panels
as required by building codes due to the deteriorated condition of the panel hardware.
After a diagnostic evaluation requested by staff, the project’s consulting electrical
design engineer recommended the replacement of 22 (out of a total of 32) electric
distribution panels that were not included in the original project scope. Replacement of
these panels will provide protection for the building occupants, electrical maintenance
staff, and the building itself from the life and safety concerns generated by the panels’
current deteriorated condition. The change order scope of work also includes work to
trace and identify existing electrical circuits within the Civic Center. Over the decades,
electrical circuits in the building have been redistributed to provide power for
renovations and office area reconfigurations. Circuits have been added and deleted
without clear documentation of the modifications. This lack of documentation creates a
safety hazard for maintenance staff when they work on the electrical distribution panels
and circuitry and violates current building code requirements. Furthermore, it makes it
difficult to determine which building components will be de-energized during power
shutdowns. Existing Facilities Management staff does not have the capacity to correct
these deficient conditions without additional labor support. Therefore, the electrical
contractor will work cooperatively with City staff to trace, identify, and label existing
electrical circuits throughout the building. The costs associated with the contract
change order with H. A. Bowen, Inc. for electrical panel replacements and circuit tracing
is $262,076. In addition, staff requests that the authorized contingency for contract
C11136280 be increased by $52,400, for a total contract amount not to exceed
$1,175,476.
Contract Amendment No. Two for Construction Management Services (Cambridge CM,
Inc.)
Cambridge CM, Inc. was retained to serve as the construction manager for Bid Package
1 as well as the current Civic Center Renovation project. The work of all three building
contractors discussed above is overseen and coordinated by a staff project manager
with the assistance of two Cambridge CM construction managers. Though the
recommended change order work will be performed concurrent with the ongoing
May 02, 2011 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 1526)
construction activity, the proposed work will extend the current project timetable by
approximately three months, through September 2011. As a result, staff recommends
approval of the attached contract amendment extending Cambridge CM’s current
contract for an additional three months. The costs associated with the attached
contract amendment with Cambridge CM, Inc. for construction management services is
$83,180, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,282,390.
The attached table (Attachment E) summarizes the dollar amounts for each of the
existing contracts and the proposed changes.
Resource Impact
Funds for these contract change orders and contract amendment are available in
Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002, Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrades.
As shown in Attachment E, the contract change orders and contract amendment will
authorize additional work and contract contingencies totaling $706,720. Even with the
addition of the proposed work, the total expenditures for this phase of the Civic Center
Renovation Project will be approximately $2.24 million below the original engineer’s
estimate of the project cost.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Sections 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA guidelines as an alteration to an
existing facility and no further environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
·A -Amendment Two to Contract No. C08124310 with Cambridge CM, Inc.(PDF)
·B -Scope of Work for Proposed Change Order to Contract No. C11136276 with Nexgen
Builders Inc.(PDF)
·C -Scope of Work for Proposed Change Order to Contract No. C11136279 with ACCO
Engineered Systems Inc.(PDF)
·D -Scope of Work for Proposed Change Order to Contract No. C11136280 with H. A. Bowen
Electric Inc.(PDF)
·E -Summary of Contract Costs (PDF)
Prepared By:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer
May 02, 2011 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 1526)
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment B
Scope of Work for Proposed
Change Order for
Nexgen Builders, Inc.
(Contract No. C11136276)
Attachment C
Scope of Work for Proposed
Change Order for
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.
(Contract No. C11136279)
Attachment D
Scope of Work for Proposed
Change Order for
H. A. Bowen Electric, Inc.
(Contract No. C11136280)
CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT (CIP PF-01002)
CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NO. TRADE
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AWARD
ORIGINAL
AUTHORIZED
CONTINGENCY
ORIGINAL TOTAL
CONTRACT
AUTHORIZATION
PROPOSED
CHANGE
ORDER
PROPOSED
CONTINGENCY
PROPOSED
TOTAL
CHANGES
PROPOSED
NOT-TO-
EXCEED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
ACCO C11136279 MECHANICAL $1,270,695 $190,600 $1,461,295 $62,747 $12,500 $75,247 $1,536,542
NEXGEN C11136276 GENERAL $367,313 $55,000 $422,313 $194,817 $39,000 $233,817 $656,130
BOWEN C11136280 ELECTRICAL $749,000 $112,000 $861,000 $262,076 $52,400 $314,476 $1,175,476
Subtotals $2,387,008 $357,600 $2,744,608 $519,640 $103,900 $623,540 $3,368,148
CONSULTANT
EXISTING
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
EXISTING
ADDITIONAL
SERVICES
EXISTING TOTAL
CONTRACT
AUTHORIZATION
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT
#2
PROPOSED
TOTAL
CHANGES
PROPOSED
NOT-TO-
EXCEED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
CAMBRIDGE C08124310 CONST. MGMT. $1,089,210 $110,000 $1,199,210 $83,180 $83,180 $1,282,390
Totals $706,720
CONTRACT SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT "E"
H:\Personal\Civic Center Remodel\aTTACHMENT e Contract Summary.xls
May 2, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Contract with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), in an
Amount Not to Exceed $774,596 (including 10% contingency fee) for
External Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2011
through June 30, 2015
RECOMMENDATION
The Interim City Auditor recommends approval of an agreement with the accounting firm of Macias
Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), for external financial audit services for the five fiscal years ending on
June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent
contingency of $70,418, for a total not to exceed amount of $774,596.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter requires the City Council, through the City Auditor, to engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit, and report the results of the
audit, in writing, to the City Council. The City’s contract with Maze & Associates, the City’s former
external auditor, expired at the end of the Fiscal Year 2010 audit. Accordingly, the City conducted a
competitive procurement process to select a certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual
financial audit for the next five years.
The evaluation panel, which included staff from the City Auditor’s Office and the Administrative
Services Department (ASD), selected the firm of Macias, Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO) to
recommend to the City Council.
MGO is the principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities, as well as Santa Clara County,
San Mateo County, the Contra Costa Water District, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The cost of the five-year agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent contingency of $70,418, for a
total not to exceed amount of $774,596.
On April 19, 2011, the Finance Committee unanimously approved my recommendation to negotiate
an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP, for external financial audit services. The Finance
Committee also recommended the City Auditor’s Office return to the Committee with a proposed
External Financial Auditor rotation policy.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Interim City Auditor
Attachment A: Finance Committee Meeting Excerpt (April 19, 2011)
Attachment B: City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External Financial Audit Firm
Attachment C: Contract with Macias Gini & O’Connell
Attachment A
FINANCE COMMITTEE - EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Absent: None
5. City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External
Financial Audit Firm
Michael Edmonds, Interim City Auditor, requested the Finance
Committee to authorize the City Auditor to negotiate a contract with
Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO) for external audit services for the
fiscal years ending on June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The total
cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a ten percent contingency fee
of $70,418, for a total not to exceed amount of $774,596. Mr.
Edmonds stated that in February 2011, the City initiated a formal
Request for Proposal (RFP) process that encouraged competition from
all qualified firms, including the current external financial auditors,
Maze & Associates. The RFP was sent to 16 audit firms, and in
response, the City received proposals from seven audit firms. An
evaluation team of six, including staff from the City Auditor’s Office
and the Administrative Services Department (ASD), reviewed and
evaluated the seven proposals and agreed to interview the two most
qualified firms, Maze & Associates and MGO.
Mr. Edmonds detailed how Maze & Associates has been the City’s
external financial auditor for the past 13 years, while MGO is the
principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities. Although the
evaluation team agreed that both firms were highly qualified,
Attachment A
experienced firms, the evaluation team recommended the award of the
agreement for external audit services to MGO.
Mr. Edmonds discussed how MGO’s cost proposal was lower than that
of Maze & Associates by $57,675 over the five years. The evaluation
team contacted six references which reported that MGO was thorough,
flexible with staff, met deadlines, and stayed within their cost
proposal.
Mr. Edmonds explained that there were a couple of concerns regarding
MGO. First, a couple members of the evaluation team expressed
concern with the direct experience of the MGO team regarding their
gas and electric utility experience. After some discussion with MGO,
the firm agreed to language in the agreement to designate staff with
experience in auditing gas and electric utilities to be included on the
audit team at no additional cost to the City. The second concern was
raised by the ASD Director in that with changing auditors at a time
when the department is losing a number of key staff due to
retirements, there will be additional staff costs and time associated
with the transition to a new auditing firm. Mr. Edmonds stated he
understood those concerns but was confident they would be addressed
and overcome. Mr. Edmonds explained how other organizations
experienced similar transitions with reduced resources, and were able
to do so in a smoother than expected approach.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member Yeh, that the Finance Committee recommend to the City
Council to approve the City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of
External Financial Audit Firm.
Council Member Schmid said that after 13 years, he can see a need for
change. He said that in the first year of the contract, he does not
expect to see any budget savings.
Council Member Yeh asked whether the issue regarding gas and
electric experience is the only concern pertaining to Utilities funds. Mr.
Edmonds answered yes; the evaluation panel felt strongly that MGO
was a highly qualified firm.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, complimented Mr.
Edmonds for addressing these concerns. He also stated the concern
with ASD staff leaving was of high importance, but Mr. Edmonds was
able to address those concerns to his satisfaction. He said that
overall, he is happy with the change.
Attachment A
Council Member Yeh stated that it is good to know that all the issues
are resolved. He suggested that since the City does not have a formal
rotation policy in hiring an external financial auditor, the City Auditor’s
Office can review other organization’s policies and/or go out for a RFP.
This can be added as an amendment to the initial motion.
Mr. Edmonds confirmed that there is no formal auditor rotation policy
in place right now, but he could develop one for Council’s approval
according to the Government Finance Officer’s Association best
practices for audit procurement.
Mr. Edmonds asked if this item should return to the Finance
Committee or Policy and Services.
Chair Scharff stated that his sense is that it should go to Policy and
Services.
Council Member Schmid said by going to Policy and Services, it gets
them engaged in the audit process.
Chair Scharff said he thinks the City Auditor should come back to the
Finance Committee meeting and then possibly afterwards to the Policy
and Services Committee.
Chair Scharff asked what the evaluation team felt about other cities’
bids when they were hiring for an external financial auditor.
Mr. Edmonds responded that there was no real sense regarding that
question. The prices of the various firms are public information.
Therefore, a competing firm to Maze & Associates, for example, knows
what their bid price would be going into the process.
Mr. Perez mentioned that from his experience (in auditing and other
areas), firms want to have Palo Alto on their resume.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
April 19, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Attn: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External Financial Audit
Firm
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Auditor should negotiate an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO)
for external audit services for the fiscal years ending on June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The
total cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent contingency of $70,418, for a total cost of
$774,596. The agreement amount for each of the fiscal years is as follows: $136,945 for the fiscal
years (FY) ending June 30, 2011; $138,863 for the FY ending June 30, 2012; $140,809 for the FY
ending June 30, 2013; $142,780 for the FY ending June 30, 2014; and $144,781 for the FY ending
June 30, 2015. This agreement will require approval by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter requires the City Council, through the City Auditor, to engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit, and report the results of the
audit, in writing, to the City Council. Accordingly, in February 2011, the City initiated a formal
Request for Proposal (RFP) process that encouraged competition from all qualified firms, including
the current external auditors, Maze & Associates. The RFP was sent to 16 audit firms, and in
response, the City received proposals from seven audit firms: MGO, Caporicci & Larson, Inc.,
Chavan & Associates, Maze & Associates, Nigro & Nigro, Sotomayer & Associates, LLP, and
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP.
An evaluation team of six, including staff from the City Auditor’s Office and the Administrative
Services Department (ASD), reviewed and evaluated the seven proposals and agreed to interview
the two most qualified firms, Maze & Associates and MGO.
Maze & Associates specializes in government auditing services and has been the City’s external
auditor for the past 13 years. Maze & Associates currently has 40 cities as clients and annually
audits over 200 entities including cities, special districts, joint powers authorities, redevelopment
agencies, housing authorities, and financing authorities.
MGO is the principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities-San Diego, San Jose, San
Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Oakland, and Santa Ana. MGO’s list of clients also includes Santa
Clara County, San Mateo County, Alameda County, the Contra Costa Water District, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
Attachment B
Although the evaluation team agreed that both firms were highly qualified, experienced firms, the
evaluation team recommended the award of the agreement for external audit services to MGO.
The City does not have a formal rotation policy for its external auditor; however, the majority of the
evaluation team believed that the auditor’s independence would be enhanced by changing auditors
at this time, especially considering the qualifications and experience of MGO.
MGO’s cost proposal was lower than Maze & Associates. MGO’s five year cost proposal of
$704,178 was $57,675 less than Maze & Associates five year cost proposal of $761,853. MGO’s
cost proposal for the first year of the contract was $136,945, or approximately $9,400 less than
Maze & Associates first year cost proposal of $146,389.
The evaluation team contacted six references for MGO-the City and County of San Francisco, the
cities of San Jose, Oakland, Stockton, and Cupertino, and the Contra Costa Water District.
References reported that MGO was thorough, flexible with staff, met deadlines, and stayed within
their cost proposal. Two of the references, the City of Cupertino and the Contra Costa Water
District, recently switched to MGO after using Maze & Associates for 10 years. Both these
agencies reported that they were satisfied with the work of Maze & Associates but changed firms to
provide a fresh perspective. Both agencies also reported that the transition from Maze &
Associates to MGO went well and was smoother than expected.
A couple of members of the evaluation team were concerned with the level of experience of MGO’s
proposed audit team in auditing gas and electric utilities. To address this, the evaluation team
agreed to request MGO to include language in the agreement to assign staff with more experience
in auditing gas and electric utilities. MGO indicated that they firmly believe that the proposed audit
team has more than the requisite qualifications and experience to handle all aspects of the City’s
financial audit. Nevertheless, MGO has agreed to language in the agreement to designate staff
with experience in auditing gas and electric utilities to be included on the audit team.
The ASD Director raised concerns about changing auditors at a time when the department is losing
a number of key staff due to retirements. The ASD Director believes that much of the cost savings
in the first year of the contract will be offset by additional staff costs associated with the transition to
a new auditing firm.
The City Auditor’s Office believes that the ASD Director’s concerns are valid, but can be addressed.
Generally, changing auditors does create some additional work in the first year as the auditors try
to gain understanding of the organization’s financial system and internal controls. However, as
noted above, both the City of Cupertino and the Contra Costa Water District reported that the switch
from Maze & Associates to MGO was smoother than expected. In addition, MGO is very
experienced in auditing organizations which have undergone significant staff reductions, and the
firm is accustomed to working flexibly with staff to complete their work.
For the reasons cited above, I recommend the Finance Committee authorize the Acting City Auditor
to negotiate an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP that would be brought forward for
approval to the full Council on May 2, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Acting City Auditor
Cc: Lalo Perez
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1555)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1555)
Summary Title: PM Services for Phone System Upgrade
Title: Approval of Contract with Communication Strategies for Project
Management Services for Telephone System Replacement and Infrastructure
Upgrade in the Total Amount of $119,700
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached contract with Communication Strategies in the base amount of $99,750 and $19,950
in contingencies with a total amount not to exceed $119,700 for telecommunications and
infrastructure project management services in support of the implementation of a new
telephone system. This is one contract of approximately four that will amount to a total of $2.4
million dollars for the total project.
Executive Summary
Approval of a contract with Communications Strategies, Inc in the base amount of $99,750 and
$19,950 in contingencies with a total amount not to exceed $119,700 for telecommunications
and infrastructure project management services.
Background
A majority of the City’s telecommunications systems (Phone System, Voicemail, and Data) are
over 20 years old and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The hardware has
experienced down time over the last several years that have led to temporary loss of telephone
services. The reliability of the City’s telephone and telecommunications services is critical to
City operations. The telephone system is old and many of the telephones components are no
longer manufactured with replacements becoming difficult to come by.
Discussion
In September of 2009, staff contracted with a telecommunications professional services
consultant, Communication Strategies, to prepare a feasibility study and needs analysis of the
City’s telephone and voicemail systems to determine the direction the City should pursue to
upgrade the system and at what estimated costs. In August of 2010, the consultant provided
their findings and recommended moving in the direction of an industry standard Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone system. It was also recommended that the City first perform
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1555)
essential and requisite infrastructure upgrades to ensure Quality of Service (QoS), Power over
Ethernet (PoE) redundancy, and capacity management including:
·Cabling (approximately 70% of the City’s cabling is antiquated CAT3 cabling)
·Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
·Power (including Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS))
·Facility renovations (for cabling closets)
The estimated total cost range for this recommendation is $1,990,000 -$2,180,000.
All Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony Call Processing hardware,
software and implementation costs. Redundancy/Resiliency and
failover is included
$725,000-$800,000
Refresh of all IT switching equipment $ 630,000-$730,000
UPS and additional power requirements for access switches $100,000
Misc. Feeder cable/Fiber/Intermediate Distribution Frame (IDF)
work
$60,000
Refresh of all City IT cabling infrastructure with 2000 runs of Cat6
plenum rated cable @$200 per drop (includes allowance for
asbestos work)
$400,000
Project Management Costs (RFP/Evaluation/Project Management)$75,000-$90,000
TOTAL $1,990,000-$2,180,000
Annual Support (after year 1) Telephone system $40,000
In order to ensure competitive pricing, City staff elected to do another competitive solicitation
for Project Management services. In December of 2010, proposals were received in response
to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for telecommunications and infrastructure upgrade Project
Management services. Three vendors submitted proposals and vendor interviews were
conducted. The following lists the vendors that submitted proposals:
Company Name Location (City, State)Selected for Oral Interview
Visionary Integration
Professionals
Sacramento, CA Yes
Communication Strategies Saint Helena, CA Yes
Client First Consulting Group Corona, CA Yes
Cost Range of Proposals Submitted: $99,750 -$350,000
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1555)
Staff carefully rated and ranked each firm's submittal in response to the RFP relative to the
following criteria:
·Vendor Experience
·Knowledge of and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies
·Completeness and Quality of Proposal
·Cost Proposal
Upon staff’s evaluation of the proposals and vendor interviews, Communication Strategies was
selected as the recommended awarded vendor based on all the above criteria. Communication
Strategies has extensive knowledge in telecommunications and technical infrastructure, has a
proven track record working with other public agencies such as, City of Tracy, City of Manteca,
Stanislaus County Office of Education, San Mateo County, and Stanford Hospital and Clinics. In
addition, Communication Strategies submitted the most favorable proposal in terms of cost.
Moving forward, Communication Strategies will assist with developing requirements for all
components of this upgrade, develop specifications, establish evaluation criteria, coordinate
vendor interviews, assist with contract execution, and provide overall project management
during implementation.
Resource Impact
In anticipation for this work, CIP TE-00010 was established in the amount of $1 million dollars.
Due to the required infrastructure upgrades needed to support the implementation of a new
phone system, staff will be asking for additional funding. The phone system cost will be
allocated to all funds based on usage. The Funding sources will first be identified by the closure
of technology CIPs that are completed or no longer needed and then utilizing Technology Fund
reserves.
Environmental Review
This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Communication Strategies Contract (PDF)
Prepared By:Lisa Bolger, Manager, IT
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1491)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1491)
Summary Title: Award of Purch Order for Forklift and Walk-In Van
Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $135,618
to Fund the Purchase of a Walk-In Van and a Forklift; Approval of Purchase
Orders with 1) Golden Gate Truck Center in an Amount Not to Exceed $80,726
for the Purchase of a Walk-In Van; and 2) Big Joe Handling Systems in an Amount
Not to Exceed $54,892 for the Purchase of a Forklift (Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program Project VR-11000)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $135,618
(Attachment A) to provide an appropriation for the purchase of a Walk-in Van and a
Forklift;
2.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Golden Gate
Truck Center in the amount of $80,726 for the purchase of a Walk-In Van; and
3.Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Big Joe
Handling Systems in the amount of $54,892 for the purchase of an 8,000 pound Forklift.
DISCUSSION
The vehicle and equipment replacement policy described in City Policy and Procedures 4-1
(Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement), provides for the on-going
replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment. Replacements are scheduled using
guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation, and obsolescence.
Walk-In Van
The City’s fleet currently includes a number of walk-in (step) vans, which are used for
various purposes by both the Utilities and Administrative Services departments. The
van that is the subject of this acquisition (#1248) is used by the Warehouse Section of
the Administrative Services Department. Vehicle #1248 is assigned to Class 05 (light
trucks 6,000 –11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). Policy 4-1 prescribes a replacement
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1491)
interval for Class 05 vehicles of eight years or 80,000 miles. The existing replacement
guidelines are outdated and will be extended in the next revision to the Policy. Modern
light trucks are more reliable than their predecessors and should last at least ten years
or 100,000 miles without requiring major repairs. The van that is being used by the
Stores section is 13 years old and has accumulated 175,000 miles. In addition to
exceeding the criteria for age and mileage, it has become less than adequate for its
intended use. Over the years, Stores has been tasked with transferring increasing
amounts of library books between branches. These books and some other types of
cargo (such as pallets of paper) are very heavy, and frequently exceed the carrying
capacity of the existing vehicle. The replacement vehicle will be constructed on a
medium-duty (14,000 pound gross vehicle weight) chassis, and will have adequate
carrying capacity for existing and future needs. In addition, it is designed to last at least
15 years.
8,000 Pound Forklift
The City’s fleet currently includes six forklifts, which are used for various purposes by
Utilities, the Water Quality Control Plant and Administrative Services. The forklift that is
the subject of this acquisition (#4617) is one of two used by the Water Quality Control
Plant. Unit #4617 is used to move bags of barscreen screenings, bins of grit, and for
other general material handling duties at the plant. Policy 4-1 prescribes a replacement
interval for forklifts of 10-15 years. The existing replacement guidelines for forklifts are
adequate, since equipment life can vary widely depending on utilization and whether
the equipment is used indoors or outdoors. Typically, forklifts used outdoors will
deteriorate from weathering before they experience substantial wear and tear from
usage. Unit #4617 is 19 years old and is currently out of service due to its need for
major repairs. The Water Quality Control Plant is renting a forklift until the replacement
unit arrives. The replacement forklift will be identical in size and capacity to the unit
being replaced.
Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement
Both of these purchases are being conducted with full consideration for the recent Audit of
Vehicle Utilization and Replacement. The vehicles being replaced through this purchase have
on average greatly exceeded the minimum mileage accumulation of 2,500 miles or 50 usage
hours annually. .
The Fleet Review Committee (FRC) approved the replacement of the Walk-In Van on
November 17, 2010 and the forklift on March 11, 2011 in accordance with the audit
recommendations. The approval was based on:
·An examination of each vehicle’s current usage;
·An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs;
·A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of
each vehicle with others in the class; and
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1491)
·An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage
reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another
underutilized vehicle, or renting.
The FRC determined that there are no alternatives to outright replacement. The walk-in van is
used on a continuous daily basis for the delivery of supplies and materials. The forklift is used
on a daily basis at the Water Quality Control Plant and is not easily transportable to other sites.
These factors preclude their assignment to a motor pool, and the application in which each is
employed rules out the use of a private vehicle with mileage reimbursement. They are each
used on-a-continuous daily basis, or are at remote locations, so there are no opportunities for
sharing. There are no similar, underutilized vehicles available to use as replacements for these
vehicles. Because these vehicles are used continuously throughout the year, renting them
would not be a cost-effective option.
Bidding and Selection Process
Walk-In Van
A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a Walk-In Van was sent to four vendors on February 7, 2011.
Bids were received from two qualified vendors on March 1, 2011, as listed on the attached bid
summary (Attachment B). Bids ranged from a high of to $78,907 to a low bid of $66,671. The
total bid price did not include the cost of an optional cargo ramp ($1,819), which will be
included in the final purchase order.
The bid from Diamond Sales and Service was the lowest; however, the vehicle they proposed
did not meet specifications and the proposal was rejected on that basis.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by Golden Gate
Truck Center be accepted and that Golden Gate Truck Center be declared the lowest
responsible bidder.
Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for previous contracts and has found no
significant complaints.
Forklift
A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for an 8,000 pound forklift was sent to five vendors on
March 11, 2011. Bids were received from five qualified vendors on March 22, 2011, as listed on
the attached bid summary (Attachment B). Bids ranged from a high of to $67,775 to a low bid
of $54,892.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by Big Joe
Handling Systems be accepted and that Big Joe Handling Systems be declared the lowest
responsible bidder.
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1491)
Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for previous contracts and has found no
significant complaints.
Resource Impact
The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance will provide for the transfer of funding from the
Vehicle Replacement Fund Reserve into the current year’s Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment
Replacement CIP (VR-11000).
Policy Implications
Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy.
Environmental Review
The vehicles being supplied are in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and
regulations. Accordingly, this purchase is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
under the CEQA guidelines (Section 15061).
Attachments:
·BAO -VR11000 Fork Lift (DOC)
·Bid Summary -Walk-in van and forklift (PDF)
Prepared By:Keith LaHaie, Fleet Manager
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 TO PROVIDE
AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $135,618 TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER VR-11000, SCHEDULED
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
WALK-IN VAN AND A FORKLIFT
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 28, 2010 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011; and
B.City policy on vehicle and equipment replacement
provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles
and equipment.Replacements are scheduled using guidelines
based on age, mileage accumulation, and obsolescence.The
City’s fleet currently includes a number of walk-in (step)
vans, which are used for various purposes by both the
Utilities and Administrative Services departments. The van
that is the subject of this acquisition (#1248) is used by the
Warehouse Section of the Administrative Services Department.
The van that is being used by the Stores section is 13 years
old and has accumulated 175,000 miles; and
C.The City’s fleet currently includes six forklifts,
which are used for various purposes by Utilities, the Water
Quality Control Plant and Administrative Services. The
forklift that is the subject of this acquisition (#4617) is
one of two used by the Water Quality Control Plant. Unit
#4617 is 19 years old and is currently out of service due
to its need for major repairs. The Water Quality Control
Plant is renting a forklift until the replacement unit
arrives; and
D.The Fleet Review Committee (FRC) approved the
replacement of the Walk-In Van on November 17, 2010 and the
forklift on March 11, 2011 in accordance with the audit
recommendations; and
E.A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a Walk-In Van was
sent to four vendors on February 7, 2011. Bids were received
from two qualified vendors on March 15, 2011.Staff has
reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid in the
amount of $80,726 submitted by Golden Gate Truck Center will
be accepted; and
F. A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for an 8,000 pound
forklift was sent to five vendors on March 11, 2011. Bids
were received from five qualified vendors on March 22, 2011.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the
bid in the amount of $54,892 submitted by Big Joe Handling
Systems be accepted;and
G. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2011
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2.The sum of One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand
Six Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($135,618) is hereby appropriated
to CIP Project Number VR-11000.
SECTION 3.The Vehicle Replacement Fund Reserve is hereby
reduced by One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred
Eighteen Dollars ($135,618) to Five Million Seven Hundred
Twenty Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($5,720,115).
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 vehicles being purchased are in compliance
with all applicable emissions laws and regulations.
Accordingly, this purchase is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Section
15061).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment B
BID SUMMARY
Walk-In Van
RFQ140129
Golden Gate Truck Center Bid Total $78,907.35
Diamond Sales and Service Bid Total $66,671.43*
* Proposal did not meet specifications
BID SUMMARY
8,000 Pound Forklift
RFQ140670
Sunrise Forklift, Inc. Bid Total $67,775.42
Cromer Equipment Bid Total $66,433.76
Komatsu Forklift of Northern California Bid Total $62,892.25
Toyota Material Handling Bid Total $61,520.86
Big Joe California North Bid Total $54,891.57
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1547)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1547)
Summary Title: Contract Amendment for Inglewood Parking Citations
Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into
Amendment One for contract No. C07118158 with City of Inglewood to Add
Collection Services for Delinquent Parking Citations
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee enter into
amendment three to contract C07118158 with the City of Inglewood to add enhanced
collection services for delinquent parking citations in substantially the same format as the
attached amendment and exhibit B-1. The City of Palo Alto agrees to pay the City of Inglewood
ICMS/LES Collection program a fee of 35% of the amount of each delinquent parking citation
collected, not to exceed $130,000 for the period of April 2011 through November 2011.
Background
The City of Palo Alto has contracted with the City of Inglewood for parking citation processing
and some collection services since October 2001. This Government-2-Government joint service
provides automation systems, notice mailing and other optional services which cities can
purchase to supplement in-house resources and capabilities related to processing of parking
citations. Inglewood Citation Management Services (ICMS) serves over 60 California municipal
agencies and for the last ten years has proven to be a cost effective program for the City of Palo
Alto.
In 2006-07, ICMS enhanced collection agency services provided by Law Enforcement Systems
(LES), a private company, and added “Secondary Delinquent Parking Citation Collection
Services,” which expanded the services available to clients for collection of past due citations
on a contingency basis of 35% of the amount collected from delinquent accounts. Staff is
recommending implementation of these additional collection services.
This item is consistent with the City’s objective to recover the cost of services where
appropriate and to increase General Fund collection revenue after expenses, when possible.
Discussion
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1547)
The City of Palo Alto purchases parking citation processing services from the City of Inglewood
under a government shared service program known as Inglewood Citation Management
Services (ICMS). This program allows cities to purchase various parking citation processing and
collection services including use of computer systems, notice printing and mailing, payment
processing, customer services and collection of delinquent accounts. One of the optional
services is “Secondary Delinquent Parking Citations Collection Services”. This service assigns
parking citations that are greater than 90 days delinquent to the ICMS collection agency, Law
Enforcement Systems, that provides ICMS collection service. This service includes collection
efforts beyond normal noticing and DMV registration holds at no upfront costs to the City.
Collection fees are contingent on collection of past due citation fines and late penalties. The
cost of the service is 35% of the amount collected. The services are fully integrated with the
parking citation processing system and provides customized collection notices, mailing and
postage, skip tracing services, and call center staffing for customer service and dispute review.
Under the ICMS collection program Palo Alto will also receive reimbursement for the $3.00
DMV filing fees and payment of the Franchise Tax Board’s Tax Intercept filing fees normally
charged by ICMS.
Currently the City of Palo Alto has a collection rate of approximately 80% but staff believes that
this collection rate could be improved with the services of a specialized collection agency.
Under the City’s current process, citations issued to vehicles registered in California are liened
at DMV once they become delinquent. The City currently utilizes the services of a collection
agency for the collection of citations issued to out of state vehicles. However, the ICMS
collection services would supplement existing collections efforts because the ICMS services are
specifically to address delinquent parking citations and they have collection tools such as
connectivity to the DMV that the City’s conventional agency does not provide. The following
table shows payments received versus delinquent unpaid penalties for the last five years:
Year Payments Delinquent
2006 $1,808,402 $226,960
2007 $1,615,722 $225,779
2008 $1,748,895 $237,554
2009 $1,476,612 $299,127
2010 $1,491,160 $358,453
Palo Alto currently has a five year delinquent citation backlog of approximately 20,669 citations,
with a total value of $1,347,873, which would be sent to ICMS for collections. Based on ICMS
experience, Palo Alto could anticipate a collection of $262,835 net after expenses over the next
18 months. While these figures were provided by ICMS based on an 18 month timeline, the
current contract with ICMS ends in October 2011, at which time staff will either select a new
citation processing contractor or enter into a new contract with ICMS. If ICMS is selected, staff
could anticipate the collection figures noted above over the next 18 months.
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1547)
On an ongoing basis the collection program is anticipated to assign approximately 5,300
delinquent citations valued at $330,000 per year, which are typically unpaid 12 months after
issuance. The collection service anticipates collecting 30% to 35% of these citations, which
could produce $65,000 per year in additional citation revenue net of expenses. The collection
program will reduce expenses approximately $8,000 per year in DMV hold fees and $7,500 in
FTB Tax Intercept filing fees which will be paid by ICMS.
The collection program also offers an option for participating cities to add a “Cost of Collection
Penalty Fee” to reimburse the City for the cost of this service, which ICMS recommends
implementing through ordinance and resolution.After gaining experience with the collection
program, staff will consider adopting a cost of collection penalty fee equal to the ICMS 35%
collection commission rate. Given the current contract with ICMS runs through October 2011,
It was the intention of staff evaluate the comprehensive collections service as quickly as
possible to use as a trial basis for the remainder of the contract, and to determine if it is a
service that should be included as part of the new RFP.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Adding this collection service will not have any significant impact on current staff. The revenue
recovered from the delinquent parking citations will have a positive impact on the city budget
of approximately $65,000 per year after expenses. Additionally, delinquent citations in the
amount of $1,347,873 have remained uncollected for over five years and this program is
anticipated to recover over $262,000 of the backlog in delinquent citation penalties during the
next 18 months. This amount equates to approximately 35%of the total outstanding
uncollected debt.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report do not represent a change in City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
A.Amendment No. One to contract No. C07118158 between the City of Palo Alto and City of
Inglewood.
B.Exhibit A-1 Collections Program Scope of Work.
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1547)
C.Exhibit B-1 Compensation for Collection Services.
Attachments:
·8261551 AGT City of Inglewood Parking Amendment_v3 (DOC)
·Exhibit A-1 (PDF)
·Exhibit B-1 (PDF)
Prepared By:Michael Denson, Police Lieutenant
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
Date --#
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C07118158
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CITY OF INGLEWOOD
This Amendment No. One to Contract No. C07118158 (“Contract”) is entered into
May ___, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and City of Inglewood, located at One Manchester Boulevard, Inglewood, CA
90301 (“Contractor”).
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
parking citation processing; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to add collection services for
delinquent parking citations;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section One (“Services”)is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services
(“Services”) described in the Scopes of Services, attached as Exhibits A
and A-1.”
SECTION 2. Section Five (“Compensation”)is hereby amended to read as follows:
“COMPENSATION. 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:
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in
Exhibits B and B-1, not to exceed a total maximum compensation
amount of (a) ninety five thousand dollars ($95,000) per year for the
citation processing services described in Exhibit B,and (b) one hundred
thirty thousand dollars ($130,000) for the citation collections services
described in Exhibit B-1 for the period of April 2011 through November
2011.
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the services for an amount
not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above.
The City has set aside the sum of nine thousand five hundred dollars
($9,500) for Additional services. Contractor shall provide Additional
2
Date --#
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, level of
effort, and Contractor’s proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expenses, 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.”
SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract are hereby added to read as set
forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a.Exhibit “A-1” entitled “Collections Program Scope of Work.”
b.Exhibit “B-1” entitled “Collections Program Compensation.”
SECTION 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.
3
Date --#
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
_____________________________
Insurance Review
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
CITY OF INGLEWOOD
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:MAYOR
APPROVE TO FORM
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST
By:___________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: CITY CLERK
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A-1":Collections Program Scope of Work
EXHIBIT "B-1":Collections Program Compensation
EXHIBIT A-I
Collections Program Scope of Work
This document describes the ICMS Comprehensive Collection Services scope of work, fees and
payment procedures. These services are provided by the City's contract service provider Law
Enforcement Systems (LES).
1. Cost of Collection Recovery Fee: Client Agencies may, at their option, adopt an ordinance
or approve a fee to cover the cost of collection.
2. Collection Fees: The collection fee paid to ICMSILES will and will cover all expenses
related to the collection process and will only apply to citations collected.
3. Assignment: Citations will be assigned 21 days after the maximum penalty date, unless
otherwise agreed upon by the Client Agency and ICMS. LES will accept delinquent citation
assignments via the City ofInglewood ICMS/Duncan AutoProcess system and use its best efforts to
collect citations.
4. Collection Letters: LES will present proposed collection letters to the City to review, edit
and approve. The collection letters will include:
a. Notice of Assignment to Collection Agency
b. Demand for Payment
c. Impending DMV Lien
d. Impending Tax Offset
e. Impending Assignment to Collection Attorney (optional)
5. Skip Tracing: LES will provide skip tracing services to locate violators at a current address
for all accounts assigned with a "bad address" indicator and from accounts that are "return to sender"
via LES mailings.
6. DMV Information: LES will use its resources to verify DMV information and obtain
registration information for any accounts assigned without a registered owner.
7. Customer Service: LES will provide a toll-free customer service number which will be
listed on all correspondence for violators to contact LES should they have any questions or want to
dispute the validity of the debt.
8. Dispute Resolution: LES will provide dispute resolution services to review violator claims
of non-liability and forward accounts to client agencies where LES has determined a valid reason for
dismissal is present. The ICMSlDuncan system will be updated to reflect the Client Agency decision
either by the Client Agency or by LES.
4
Date --#
9. Lockbox Remittance Processing: LES will provide lockbox remittance processing and
include a return remittance envelope with all delinquent collection notices.
10. DMV Lien Process: The ICMS AutoProcess -LES collections interface provides for
delayed filing ofDMV Liens until 100-120 days before the renewal date. This allows maximum
time to collect citations without waiting up to one year for the renewal date. LES will mail the
"Notice of Impending DMV Lien" prior to the lien being filed. LES pays all monthly DMV Lien
fees.
II. Franchise Tax Board: The Comprehensive Collection Service includes participation in the
armual Franchise Tax Board's Tax Offset Program including:
a. Selecting qualifYing accounts per Client Agency guidelines
b. Obtaining Social Security numbers
c. Obtaining updated addresses
d. Consolidating multiple plates owned by a single violator
e. Mailing Impending Offset Notice
f. Receiving calls from violators resulting from Impending Offset Notice
g. Lockbox remittance processing
h. Filing with FTB the balance of accounts remaining unpaid from Impending FTB Notice
process
1. Handling calls from violators whose tax refund has been intercepted
J. Updating FTB with modifY records; payments received at other sources, additional amount
due
k. Issuing refunds at direction of Client Agency for cases found to have been filed in error
12. Fee Rate for Comprehensive Collection Services:
The City of Palo Alto agrees to pay the City of Inglewood ICMSILES Collection program 35% of
collection of delinquent parking citations.
13. LES Fees, Expense Reimbursement and Revenue Distribution:
a. LES will retain the agreed upon fee on payments received from assigned citations. The
collection fee will be applicable in cases where the client agencies decides to accept less than the
total amount assigned or where the FTB has intercepted a lesser amount, but in no case shall LES'
fee exceed the agreed upon rate.
b. LES services are contingency fee based with no additional charges for FTB Social Security
numbers, DMV Liens, plate matching and mailings.
c. LES will issue the Client Agency a credit for DMV lien fees deducted by the State from
collection proceeds.
d. On a mutually agreed upon schedule, LES will transfer to the Client Agency's designated
account, via ACH transfer, the Net Receipts for the prior reporting period. "Net Receipts" means the
collection fee due ICMS/LES will be deducted from proceeds of collections and the remaining funds
will be transferred to the Client Agency. Adequate funds may not exist in the LES trust when
payment of assigned accounts occurs through mail, over the counter, credit card telephone or Internet
payments are received directly by the Client Agency.
5
Date --#
e. Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Tax Intercept Lien Collections distribution to client agencies will
be distributed by the City of Inglewood ICMS Program Office, from funds received monthly from
FTB. The amount distributed will be net of collection fees due ICMS/LES for FTB collection plus
any balance due or collection fees due to ICMSILES as discussed in Section D above.
f. In the event that collection fees due ICMS/LES for any month exceed the amount of funds
available in the LES lockbox account and the monthly FTB distribution, the City ofInglewood will
invoice the Client Agency for the balance due. Payment terms for the balance due shall be Net 30
days of receipt of invoice.
g. Contractor will provide City with a monthly statement and supporting report that itemizes the
collection by citation number and source of payment. The monthly statement will reconcile all
payments for assigned accounts received at the following sources
• Direct payment to City from mail, over the counter, IVR and internet credit card
payments;
• Direct payment to City from DMV for registration hold payments received;
• Payment to LES Collection Lockbox service
• Payment to Inglewood by FTB for tax intercept and lottery winning liens filed on
behalf of the City.
Transition Plan for Citations Curreutly on DMV Hold
a. Palo Alto will NOT adopt a 35% cost of collection penalty fee at this time.
b. All citations remaining unpaid at 91 days after issuances will be assigned to LES for
collection services. This includes citations currently filed with DMV for registration holds.
c. DMV registration hold requests will continue to be transmitted to DMV in accordance with
the business rules adopted by the City.
d. LES will initiate collection efforts upon assigument. This will proceed at the same time as
DMV Holds are outstanding.
a. ICMSILES will consolidate multiple plates to a common owner, where applicable.
b. We will provide skip tracing to locate current address.
c. ICMSILES will mail customer approved collection letters at no expense to Palo Alto.
d. LES will provide 1-800 ph# and customer service staff.
e. LES will provide payment processing lockbox services for assigned accounts
e. LES will be entitled to any collection fees made at DMV after the collection program has
been implemented 120 days. No collection fees will be charged if collection occurs at DMV prior to
that date.
f. ICMS/LES will reimburse the City for DMV hold request fees charged to the City from the
date the collection program is implemented going forward.
6
Date --#
EXHIBIT B-1
Compensation for Collections Services
The City of Palo Alto agrees to pay the City ofInglewood ICMS/LES Collection program a fee of
35% of the amount of each delinquent parking citation collected pursuant to the guidelines set forth
in Exhibit A-I.
7
Date --#
City of Palo Alto eID # 1613)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
Summary Title: Extended 960 Hour Limit for Interim City Auditor
Title: Adoption of Resolution Requesting Approval from the CalPERS Board
of Administration for Extension of Employment Pursuant to Government
Code Section 21221(h) for Acting City Auditor Michael Edmunds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to request the
CalPERS Board of Administration approve an extension of the 960-hour
employment limit for the Acting City Auditor, Michael Edmonds, in accordance
with Government Code 21221(h). The extension is for an additional 960 hours up
to October 25, 2011.
Background
On October 25, 2010, Council appointed Michael Edmonds to serve as Acting City
Auditor during City Auditor Lynda Brouchoud's leave-of-absence pla=ed from
October 18, 2010 to April 18, 2011. In March 2011, Ms. Brouchoud notified
Mayor Espinosa that she would not be returning to the City upon the completion
of her leave-of-absence. The Council has initiated steps to hire an executive
recruiter to fill this critical vacancy, and Mr. Edmonds has agreed to continue
working in his capacity as Acting City Auditor so that there is no disruption to the
City Auditor's ongoing work.
May 02,2011
eID # 1613)
Page 1 of 4
State Law limits PERS retirees from working more than 960 hours per fiscal year
with a PERS' agency and the Acting City Auditor has nearly exhausted this limit
for Fiscal Year 2011. Government Code Section 21221(h), however, provides an
exception to the 960-hour limit, allowing agencies to request an extension for
retiree employment for a limited duration where specialized skills are needed. In
order to allow the Acting City Auditor to continue working until a permanent
replacement can be hired, the Council needs to adopt the attached resolution
requesting approval from CalPERS for an extension to allow the Acting City
Auditor to continue in his capacity up to October 25, 2011.
The Council CAO Committee is in the process of interviewing Executive Search
firms to begin the recruitment process for a new auditor.
Discussion
Under the direction of the Council and in accordance with the Charter Authority
and Municipal Code, the City Auditor's Office conducts and coordinates a variety
of performance, financial, and revenue audits and special studies that provide the
Council, City management, and the citizens of Palo Alto with evaluations on the
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of City services.
The City Auditor's position is unique and requires specialized skill in internal
auditing, experience, preferably from a public sector organization, and training.
The City Auditor is tasked with managing audits related to internal accounting
and management activities to assure compliance, and identifying and improving
controls, procedures and system efficiencies in City operating departments. The
number of public agencies which have such an internal performance auditor are
limited, making the position and skills required for the job unique. Mr. Edmonds
has over 30 years of auditing experience and is uniquely qualified to fill this role
because he has 25 years of experience in managing audits for public agencies.
May 02,2011
(10 # 1613)
Page 2 of 4
I
. 1
After receiving notice that the City Auditor would not be returning to her position
at the end of her leave-of-absence, Council initiated steps to hire an executive
recruiter to fill this vacancy. The recruitment is currently in process and is
expected to be completed in six months or less .
Mr. Edmonds has agreed to continue in his capacity as Acting City Auditor until a
new City Auditor is in place. Since Mr. Edmonds has worked full-time since he
was hired to serve as Acting City Auditor on October 25, 2010, he has nearly .
exhausted the 960-hour limit. If the resolution is not approved, the City Auditor's
Office would be without an experienced audit manager until a new City Auditor is
in place. Approving the resolution will assure that the City Auditor's Office will
continue under the Acting City Auditor's leadership until a new City Auditor is in
place.
Resource Impact
Staff estimates a $70,000 cost for extending Mr. Edmonds term in order to
continue as Acting City Auditor, but this cost will be more than offset by salary
and benefit savings resulting from not having a permanent City Auditor in place.
Policy Implications
The City complies with the 960-hour limit for hourly employment for retirees and
has rarely used the exemption provision in Government Code Section 21221(h).
However, having Mr. Edmonds continue until a new auditor is hired is necessary
to provide continuity and ensure that the work plan of the City Auditor's office
stays on schedule while the Council works to fill the vacancy.
Environmental Assessment
Extension of employment is not a project requiring review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
May 02, 2011
(ID # 1613)
Page 3 of 4
Attachments:
• Resolution Requesting Extension of Employment from the CalPERS Board of
Administration Pursuant to Government Code 21221(h) for Michael Edmonds (DOC)
Prepared By:
Department Head:
City Manager Approval:
May 02, 2011
(ID # 1613)
Elizabeth Egli, Administrative Assistant
Sandra Blanch,
James Keene, City Manager
Page 4 of 4
* NOT YET APPROVED *
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Requesting
Extension of Employment from the CalPERS Board of
Administration Pursuant to Government Code 21221(h)
for Michael Edmunds
WHEREAS, Michael Edmunds ("Edmunds") retired from the City of Oakland in the
position of Assistant City Auditor, effective April, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") appointed Edmunds to the position of
Acting Auditor assigned to perform City Auditor duties under Government Code section
21221(h), a position deemed to be of limited duration and requiring specialized skills, effective
October 25, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Edmunds is expected to reach his maximum of 960 hours this fiscal
year on or about May 4, 20 II; and
WHEREAS, the City Auditor's Office has three full-time Senior Performance
Auditor positions and one full-time administrative assistant in its organizational structure,
reporting to the City Auditor. The City Auditor position is required to perform and manage
audits related to internal accounting and management activities to assure, and identify and
improve controls, procedures and system efficiencies in the City's operating departments. The
number of public agencies which have such an internal performance auditor is limited, making
skills and expertise required to perform the duties of the position unique. Edmunds has 25 years
serving in an Assistant Auditor position with another public agency and is therefore qualified to
perform these duties while the City recruits for a new, permanent City Auditor.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests that the
CaiPERS Board of Administration be requested to approve an extension in accordance with
Government Code section 21221(h) for the temporary employment of Michael Edmunds for 960
additional hours through October 25, 2011. An appointment made under this subsection may not
exceed a total of 12 months.
II
II
II
II
110427 sh 8261576
* NOT YET APPROVED *
SECTION 2. 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:
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Human Resources
Director of Administrative Services
110427 sh 8261576 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1589)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1589)
Summary Title: El Camino Park
Title: Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at
El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El
Camino Park Resevoir Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff’s
suggested use of $1.365 million of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the
Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommended list of improvements to El Camino Park
(Attachment A).
Executive Summary
Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) have discussed
possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide with construction of the
Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002) (Project). With the
Commission’s guidance, staff created a list of improvements (e.g., synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse
field, expanded parking, and new pathways) that can be funded by impact fees. Staff is
recommending that Council approve the use of impact fees to fund the list of improvements at
El Camino Park (Park).
Background
The Project, which is currently in its final stage of design for the reservoir and ancillary
buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to
improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the Commission has discussed Park
design improvements at five regular meetings and one special on-site meeting at the Park.The
Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new sports facilities
will attract downtown residents to the Park and make it a vibrant part of the City’s park system.
Renovations to the Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet some well-
understood recreational needs in our community, and make effective use of space within the
park that is currently undeveloped. The Commission has urged the Council (October 10, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make park
improvements at the Park in conjunction with the Project.
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1589)
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of Proposition
218, in that the City's Water Fund may pay only for the water project and in-kind replacement
of the park and related park amenities directly impacted by the Project, and not other park
improvements or enhancements. In appreciation of the funding limitations, staff and the
Commission recommend using impact fees to augment the Utilities Department’s in-kind park
replacement.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, the Council adopted Ordinance 4742, creating Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC,
to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The impact
fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational opportunities through the
improvement of parks in order to compensate for increased demand for City facilities and
services brought about by new residential and commercial development and the associated
increase in population.
In order to validly impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a “nexus”
between the development and the public facilities or services that would be funded by the fee,
and the City also had to establish a connection between the development and the amount of
the fee that is being imposed on the development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus” report (Parks and
Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to provide the legal framework for
the imposition of development fees. According to the report, impact fees for parks are intended
to cover the cost of land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood and district
parks. The report goes on to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in
Palo Alto, the City may choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance
the capacity of existing parks to serve additional demand, rather than to acquire more land.”
Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs, and should be used on capital
projects that significantly enhance capacity.
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff worked with
community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to study
strategies for enhancing park and recreational facilities in order to mitigate for increased usage
caused by new development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park
improvement projects (Top Ten List, Attachment D) to be funded by impact fees was approved
by the Council on March 12, 2007 (CMR:168:07).
The Commission’s Recommendation for Impact Fee Use at El Camino Park
On February 22, 2011, staff presented the Commission with two possible options for using
impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment C). Staff provided context for
the recommended options by explaining the various sources of funding for capital improvement
projects (CIPs) in parks: the general fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, and impact
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1589)
fees. The Commission and staff carefully reviewed and analyzed the incomplete projects on the
Top Ten List, as well as other park projects that could potentially be funded by Park Impact
Fees. The Commission thoughtfully debated the two options for impact fee use at El Camino
Park. Staff recommended Option A, which included two synthetic turf fields and other features
such as an extended parking lot. This option would have exhausted all the funds in the impact
fee fund account. The Commission voted 4-2 to instead recommend Option B (Minutes for
Commission Meeting, Attachment E), which included one synthetic turf field and one natural
turf field; as well as a new decomposed granite pathway, picnic tables,and an extended parking
lot. Option B will use $1.365 million of the current impact fee balance of $2.8 million. The
Commission expressed the importance of retaining funding in the impact fee account for future
projects and possible land acquisition. After the lengthy discussion, staff agreed with the
Commission that Option B represents the best use of impact fees at El Camino Park.
Discussion
Final Site Design and Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee Use ($1,365,000) at El
Camino Park
Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm designing the El Camino Park Project,
incorporated the Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a
final site design (Attachment F). The design includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the
north-end of the park, and a natural turf softball/multi-use field on the south-end. The benefits
of this option are increased capacity for the park to accommodate field users, a corresponding
increased revenue from field brokering fees, and an improved and safer playing surface. The
2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”, identified field space as one of the
most critical recreation needs of our community.
The recommended design also includes an expanded parking lot (14 additional parking stalls), a
new decomposed granite exercise pathway with security lighting, four picnic tables, an
equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings which will allow for adding soccer
field lighting at a future time without damaging the artificial turf. It should be noted that future
lighting for the soccer field has not yet been vetted with the community or residents who might
be affected by the lights. Attachment A lists the features that would be funded by impact fees.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s Park improvement wish-list items (new restrooms, score
keeper building, and replacement of existing asphalt pathways) do not meet the “increase park
capacity” requirement for use of impact fee funds. Staff will continue to research funding
sources for these park improvements including future capital improvement projects with an
attempt to have the projects completed while the park is under renovation.
Future park projects that could utilize impact fee money
Staff has identified several other projects that meet the impact fee funding requirements. After
funding the suggested improvements for the Park, the remaining impact fee balance would be
$1.435 million. These projects include:
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1589)
1.Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project is
projected to cost approximately $1.6 million. The City will contribute the land and
$300,000 (recommended in the 2012 Capital Budget recommendation) for the project.
The remainder of the funding is expected to come entirely from fundraising and grants
from the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground.
2.Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012). There has
been no cost analysis for trail design and construction.
3.Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. Because
the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends deferring this project until a
new lease that ensures community access is in place.
4.Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. Because
the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff recommends deferring this project until a
new lease that ensures community access is in place.
Staff suggests that these projects, and any additional park projects that could be funded by
impact fees, should be discussed at a future Commission meeting where the Commission could
consider creating a revised Top Ten list of projects to be funded by impact fees that could be
brought to Council for review.
Timeline
•May 5, 2011 Architectural Review Board Study Session
•November 2012 Complete Phase 1 (e.g., reservoir and pump station)
•November 2012 Begin Phase 2 Construction (e.g., synthetic and natural turf, and pathways)
•May 2013 Complete Phase 2. Park re-opens to the public
Resource Impact
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as recommended to Council by staff and the Parks
and Recreation Commission, would utilize $1.365 million of the total $2.8 million in the impact
fee account. This would leave a balance of $1.435 million for future projects. The Nexus report
had projected $1.3 million annual revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts
of population and employment). Here are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1589)
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
Policy Implications
The proposed amendments are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element
of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy
community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible
functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
The project is consistent with the Park and Recreation Commission’s review of the design of the
project and is consistent with the goals of the 2002 Athletic Fields Report.
Environmental Review
This project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: El Camino Park Impact Fee Improvements (XLS)
·Attachment B: Memo from Park and Rec Commission to Council Regarding El Camino Park
Improvements (DOC)
·Attachment C: February 22, 2011 Staff Report to the Parks and Rec Commission-impact
fees at El Camino Park (PDF)
·Attachment D: Park and Recreation Commission Top Ten List 2006 (XLS)
·Attachment E: Minutes from February 22, 2011 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
(PDF)
·Attachment F: Final Site Design (PDF)
Prepared By:Daren Anderson,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Option for Impact Fee Expenditures at El Camino Park Attachment A
Improvements Staff Recommended Comments
Design Fees 75,000$
Remove Existing Trees 72,000$
Soccer Catchment Fence and Netting $ 175,000
Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $ 809,000
New Storage Building $ 19,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000
Electric Conduit for Soccer Field Lighting $ 72,000
Additional Parking $ 73,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000
Rubber Mulch Areas $ 12,000
Total:1,365,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,800,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance 1,435,000$
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
ATTACHEMNT B
1
Parks and Recreation Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO:City Council
FROM:Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE:October 20, 2010
SUBJECT:Recommendation to invest in El Camino Park design
improvements in conjunction with the El Camino Park Reservoir
Project
The Parks and Recreation Commission considers El Camino Park an underused
asset. The El Camino Park Reservoir Project creates a unique opportunity for the
City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park for active
use. Improvements to current fields and the addition of new facilities will attract
residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s Park System.
Renovations to El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet
some well-understood recreational needs in our community and make use of space
within the park that is currently undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation
Commission urges City Council to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Following a briefing about the Reservoir Project in June, 2010, site visits on June
29, 2010 and July 7, 2010, and discussion at the July 27, 2010 meeting of the Palo
Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission approved a memo outlining
potential improvements to El Camino Park. Staff member de Geus discussed the
memo with the City's Utilities Department. The Utilities Department is supportive of
improving El Camino Park and has shown a willingness to work with the
Community Services Department on this project. However, the Utilities Department
is limited by the terms of Proposition 218 allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only
for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities
impacted by the project and not park improvements.
The Parks and Recreation Commissioners understand that while some incremental,
in-kind improvements may be allowable, many park improvements cannot be
funded through the Reservoir Project. Nonetheless,we see a timely opportunity to
upgrade the park while construction-related disruptions are already underway.
Thanks to the thoughtful work of the Utilities Department planners, several of the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to support increased usage,
access and efficiencies, are included in the project's latest design:
·Include the Parks and Recreation Commission in the review of the park
design at 45%, 75% and 90% (the current design status is 65% complete);
ATTACHEMNT B
2
·Add lacrosse striping in addition to soccer striping on athletic fields to
accommodate increasing demands and allow for more flexible usage;
·Design the south softball field for multi-use, with no permanent fence
defining the softball field, to allow flexible use for softball and soccer;
·Allow walking/biking access point to the park from the south end near the
bus station drop off point, expanding access to and from the transportation
depot and the downtown area;
·Install necessary underground infrastructure, including electrical conduit
and water lines to the northern and southern ends of the park, for efficient
installation of future park improvements.
In addition to the items above, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends
the following improvements:
Building capacity of current park assets
·Add lights to the soccer/lacrosse field to allow for night games. This new
usage would relieve scheduling pressure for athletic fields and also
encourage a more organized public presence in the park after dark;
·Replace or remodel bathroom (this should include timed locks) due to its
poor condition. Better maintained facilities will welcome new users to the
park and improve users’ park experience;
·Add an access point by the rail crossing north/east of the park to
encourage and facilitate more neighborhood usage by the downtown north
community;
·Install a scoreboard on the softball field and possibly a new
storage/scorekeeper shed;
·Provide a backstop for the softball field that will not interfere with Little
League play.
Satisfy unmet needs for recreation in Palo Alto
·Design a dog exercise area at the undeveloped north or south end of the
park: Northern end of the park was preferred for a dog exercise area over
the southern end due to easier access for nearby neighborhoods. This area
is already fenced on three sides, so construction would be minimal, (fence
the north end of the park, past the soccer field, right of the walking path),
while meeting a well established community need. There are currently no
off-leash dog recreation alternatives in north Palo Alto.
·Add a walking track around one or both fields, non-asphalt, i.e.
decomposed granite to encourage more neighborhood use of the park.
ATTACHEMNT B
3
Use all of the available park space
·Improve the southwest end of the park by adding a passive grassy area for
BBQs and picnics. This would be useful for teams to use after games or
for other users of the park to enjoy;
·Commemorate the Olympic Grove of Redwood Trees at the north end of the
park;
·Improve the southern unused area of the park for other recreation uses
such as outdoor volleyball courts or a BMX track.
These preliminary recommendations are based on discussions at multiple Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings, but lack the benefit of a public outreach meeting
dedicated to discussing improvements to El Camino Park. We believe such a public
meeting is an important step that should precede any final recommendations or
decisions about specific park renovations. Because the design process is moving
forward apace, however, the Commission recommends that public outreach proceed
in parallel to investigation of supplemental funding opportunities.
The Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission understands that improving El
Camino Park is just one of many infrastructure projects facing the City.
Nonetheless, the planned Reservoir Project construction at El Camino Park creates
an unusual opportunity to optimize resources and minimize disruption by making
park improvements in conjunction with reservoir upgrades. The Commission’s
above recommendations include a variety of improvements, both small and large,
that will build capacity by maximizing park assets, serve ongoing unmet recreational
needs, and improve park access and usage. It makes sense to fund park
improvements now.The Commission strongly encourages the City to capitalize on
this opportunity.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2011
SUBJECT: El CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding staff’s suggested use
of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of improvements to El
Camino Park (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The El Camino Park Reservoir Project, which is currently in its final stage of design, has created a
unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park
for active use. Since June 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed El Camino
Park design improvements at four regular meetings and one special meeting at El Camino Park. The
Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new sports facilities will
attract residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to
El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood
recreational needs in our community, and make use of space within the park that is currently
undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation Commission has urged the City Council (October 10, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make park improvements
at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of Proposition 218
allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park
and related park amenities directly impacted by the project, and not park improvements or
enhancements. Appreciating the funding limitations, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission
will look to impact fees to augment the Utilities Departments in-kind park replacement.
Capital Improvement Projects
In order to provide context for a discussion about improvements at El Camino Park, it is helpful to
view the big picture of capital improvement projects (CIPs) for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation.
Staff has provided a spreadsheet (Attachment C) that highlights these CIPs, and separates them into
the following categories: existing CIPs FY 2011-2015; new proposed CIPs FY 2012-2016; and CIPs
that need to be addressed. The existing CIPs are projects that have already been approved and
funded for FY 2011. The new proposed CIPs have been submitted for review to the CIP Committee
and once reviewed will go to Council for funding approval. CIPs can be funded by the City’s
general fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, or by park development impact fees.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4742 creating Chapter 16.48 of the
PAMC) to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The
impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational opportunities through the
improvement of parks in order to compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services
brought about by new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in
population.
In order to impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a “nexus” between the
development and the public facilities or services that would be funded by the fee, and also had to
establish a connection between the development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on
the development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus” report (Parks and
Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to provide the legal framework for the
imposition of development fees. The report states that impact fees for Parks are intended to cover the
cost of land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes
on to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the City may
choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance the capacity of existing parks to
serve additional demand, rather than to acquire more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for
maintenance or operating costs, and should be used on capital projects that enhance capacity.
Approved 2006-2011Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the Park
Development Impact Fees (Top Ten List)
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff worked with
community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to study strategies
for enhancing park and recreational facilities in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new
development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park improvement projects
(Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees was approved by Council on March 12, 2007.
-Four of the ten projects have been completed:
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Heritage Park Children’s Playground Structure
Greer Park Phase IV Expansion Project
Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf.
-One project is in the process of being constructed:
Seale Park Restroom.
-Four projects are still to be completed:
El Camino Park Synthetic Soccer Field (conceptually scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Field Snack Shack/Restroom (CIP project PE-06007; scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting (not scheduled)
Greer Soccer Field SyntheticTurf (not scheduled)
-One project was removed from the list due to safety concerns from the park neighbors:
Eleanor Pardee Park Restroom (part of CIP PE-06007; scheduled for 2009).
DISCUSSION
As of February 22, 2011, the balance of accumulated development impact fees for parks is $2.8
million. In deciding how much of this fund should be utilized on the El Camino Park Project, staff
analyzed the remaining projects on the Top Ten List, as well as other park projects that could
potentially be funded by Park Impact Fees.
Top Ten List projects to be funded by impact fee money:
1. El Camino Park Soccer Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost
approximately $809,000. User group demand for a synthetic turf soccer field is high.
Artificial turf offers significant increased capacity compared to natural grass turf. Staff
recommends funding for this project to be encumbered from the current balance of impact
fees. (Please note this project is for only one synthetic field for soccer and does not include
the softball/lacrosse field in artificial turf.)
2. Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. Park visitor
and user group demand for a field restroom at Cubberley is high. Staff recommends that the
funding for this project be encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. User group
demand for lighting isn’t as high as the demand for a Cubberley field restroom. Staff
recommends deferring this project until the impact fee account acquires supplemental
necessary funds in the future.
4. Greer Park Soccer Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost $900,000. Greer
Park soccer fields were renovated in 2010. Palo Alto and Gunn High School both now have
synthetic turf soccer fields. Staff believes these fields address South Palo Alto’s need for a
synthetic turf soccer field. Staff recommends deferring or eliminating this project.
Other Park projects that could utilize impact fee money:
1. Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project is projected
to cost $1.3 million. Funding is expected to come from the Friends of the Magical Bridge
Playground. The City is contributing the land. Staff recommends that the Friends group fund
this project through grants and other donations.
2. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012). There has
been no cost analysis on this project. While this project is not on the Top Ten List,
completion of the trail system at Byxbee Park is a Council directive called out in the
Baylands Master Plan. Park visitor demand for providing trails once the landfill closes is
extremely high. Staff recommends that funding for this project (place holder of $275,000) be
encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Additional projects are listed as a subheading on the attached Top Ten List (Attachment
C). Due to limited funds and other projects with higher demand, staff does not recommend
encumbering any money from the current balance of impact fees for these projects. These
projects, and any additional park projects that could be funded by impact fees, should be
discussed at a future Park and Recreation Commission meeting where the Commission could
consider creating a revised Top Ten List.
Staff recommendations for projects to be funded by impact fees (Please note the costs of
improvements for El Camino Park are estimates)
:
1. El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $809,000 (this cost incorporates the
Utilities Dept. contribution that would have paid for natural grass)
2. Cubberly Snack Shack/ Restrooms $220,000
3. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails $275,000
Total Cost: $1,304,000
The remaining impact fee balance would be $1,496,000.
Final Site Design
Siegfried, the landscape architect firm designing the El Camino Park Project, has incorporated the
Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a final site design
(Attachment D). This design illustrates the expanded parking lot, and the new decomposed granite
pathway with security lighting and four picnic tables. The decomposed granite pathway was
designed to allow for the possibility of fencing-off an approximately .6 acre dog park in the area
north of the soccer field. However, staff does not recommend a dog run for this area given the
limited amount of available space and the associated maintenance challenges. Also illustrated on this
final design is a new northern access point into the park. In order to install this access point, the
Transportation Department suggests using an enhanced mid-block crosswalk system with flashing
beacons in this area. The cost of these beacons is approximately $10,000. A beacon will need to be
installed on the median, which will need to be widened to 4’. The associated costs of installing this
access point would include the cost of two Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access ramps,
new pedestrian pathway, 4’ wide concrete landings, widened median, demolition, crosswalk striping,
flashing beacons and any grading that will be required to accommodate the ramps, landings and
pedestrian pathway. A cost analysis isn’t available at this time, however Siegfried will provide the
design and cost estimate so that this feature can be considered again at a future time. Due to funding
limitations and constraints on the use of impact fees, not all the design features illustrated in final
site design are possible at this time.
Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee Use ($1,496,000) at El Camino Park
Attachment A illustrates staff’s suggested use of the remaining impact fee balance at El Camino
Park. (The artificial soccer field was separated from this section because it was part of the Top-Ten
List. The recommended features in Attachment A are in addition to the artificial soccer field.) Staff’s
recommendation allows for both an artificial turf soccer field and an artificial turf softball/multi-use
field. The benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to accommodate field users,
provide a better and safer playing surface, as well as a corresponding increase in field brokering
revenue. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”, identified field space as
one of the most critical recreation needs of our community.
Other recommended features include expanding the parking lot, new decomposed granite paths,
picnic tables, storage shed, and electric conduit and footings which will allow for adding soccer field
lighting at a future time (once impact fees have replenished) without damaging the turf. It should be
noted that lighting for the soccer field has not yet been vetted with the community or residents who
might be affected by the lights.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s El Camino Park improvement wish-list items (restroom/score
keeper building, replacement of existing asphalt pathways, additional northern access to the park,
and additional trees) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for impact fee funds.
Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park improvements including future capital
improvement projects or bond measure-funded projects with an attempt to have the projects
completed while the park is under renovation.
Staff anticipates having more refined project costs to share with the Commission at the February 22,
2011 meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as proposed by staff, would utilize $2,305,000 of the
total $2.8 million in the Park Development Impact Fee account. Staff recommends reserving
$495,000 in the Park Development Impact fund account to fund the Cubberly Restrooms ($220,000
in 2012/2013) and the Byxbee Trails ($275,000 in 2012/2013) projects. This would leave a balance
of zero for uncommitted in impact fee funds. The Nexus report projected $1.3 million annual
revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and employment). Here
are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Suggested Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of
improvements to El Camino Park
Attachment B: October 10, 2010, memorandum from Commission to Council
Attachment C: Capital Improvement Project List for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
And approved 2006-2009 Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the
Park Development Impact Fees
Attachment D: Final Site Design
PREPARED BY: Rob DeGeus and Daren Anderson_________________________
ATTACHMENT A
COSTS FOR EL CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Green = improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use
PARK LANDSCAPE COMPONENT
PARK IMPROVEMENT
INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE
SOUTH FIELD
SOFTBALL FIELD AREA
- SYNTHETIC SOFTBALL FIELD & SUB DRAIN 998,000$
CENTRAL AREA
NEW RESTROOM, PRE-ENGINEERED (INCLUDES DEMO OF EXISTING)298,000$
SCOREKEEPER'S BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 22,000$
STORAGE BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 19,000$
EXPANDED PARKING LOT W/ ISLANDS, TREES, TRASH ENCLOSURE 73,000$
NORTH FIELD
SOCCER FIELD AREA
- SYNTHETIC SOCCER FIELD & SUB DRAIN 809,000$
- REMOVE EXISTING TREES (REQUIRED WITH SYNTHETIC FIELD)72,000$
- SOCCER BALL CATCHMENT FENCE (8' CHAIN LINK & 42' NETTING)175,000$
RUBBER MULCH AREAS 12,000$
TREES 15,000$
DOG PARK 96,000$
PATHWAYS
- EXTEND D.G. PATH AROUND SOCCER FIELD (DOES NOT INCLUDE LIGHTING)11,000$
- D.G. PATH FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 4,000$
- CONCRETE PATH EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 29,000$
- CROSSWALK 96,000$
LIGHTING
- EXTEND D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING AROUND SOCCER FIELD 23,000$
- D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 15,000$
- CONCRETE PATHWAY LIGHTING - EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 31,000$
- SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING (ALL CONDUITS, FOOTINGS, WIRE, & POLES), 4 LOCATIONS 266,000$
PICNIC AREAS 24,000$
Design Fees 75,000$
TOTAL 3,160,000$
Total Cost of the El Camino Park Improvements 3,160,000$
Improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 2,557,000$
Cost of Soccer Field Synthetic Turf - already on Top Ten List for Park Impact Fee Use (809,000)$
Remaining improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 1,748,000$
Park Developmental Impact Fee Fund Balance 1,496,000$
Park Impact Fee shortfall to fund all impact fee related improvements (252,000)$
Cost of Improvements not fundable by impact Fees (603,000)$
SUMMARY
WORKING DRAFT
ATTACHMENT A
Improvements Costs Option A Option B
Design Fees (essential)75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
Remove Existing Trees (essential)72,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$
Soccer Catchment Fence and Netting
(essential)
$ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Rubber Mulch Areas (essential) $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000
New Storage Building (essential) $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000
Additional Parking (essential) $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000
Artificial Turf Softball/Multi-Use Field $ 998,000 $ 998,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway (around soccer
field)
$ 11,000 $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000 $ 23,000
Soccer Field Lights (Option - Electric
Conduit Footings Only = $72,000)
$ 266,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Total:1,748,000$ 1,496,000$ 556,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 1,496,000$ 1,496,000$ 1,496,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance
(252,000)$ -$ 940,000$
*Note: North artificial turf soccer field
$809,000 is included in staff's
recommendation and deducted from the
original $2.8 million impact fee total.
Existing Trails CIP and
Benches and Signs CIP could
possibly fund pathways and
picnic tables
ATTACHEMNT B
Parks and Recreation Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE: October 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Recommendation to invest in El Camino Park design
improvements in conjunction with the El Camino Park Reservoir
Project
The Parks and Recreation Commission considers El Camino Park an underused
asset. The El Camino Park Reservoir Project creates a unique opportunity for the
City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park for active
use. Improvements to current fields and the addition of new facilities will attract
residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s Park System.
Renovations to El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet
some well-understood recreational needs in our community and make use of space
within the park that is currently undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation
Commission urges City Council to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Following a briefing about the Reservoir Project in June, 2010, site visits on June
29, 2010 and July 7, 2010, and discussion at the July 27, 2010 meeting of the Palo
Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission approved a memo outlining
potential improvements to El Camino Park. Staff member de Geus discussed the
memo with the City's Utilities Department. The Utilities Department is supportive of
improving El Camino Park and has shown a willingness to work with the
Community Services Department on this project. However, the Utilities Department
is limited by the terms of Proposition 218 allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only
for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities
impacted by the project and not park improvements.
The Parks and Recreation Commissioners understand that while some incremental,
in-kind improvements may be allowable, many park improvements cannot be
funded through the Reservoir Project. Nonetheless, we see a timely opportunity to
upgrade the park while construction-related disruptions are already underway.
Thanks to the thoughtful work of the Utilities Department planners, several of the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to support increased usage,
access and efficiencies, are included in the project's latest design:
Include the Parks and Recreation Commission in the review of the park
design at 45%, 75% and 90% (the current design status is 65% complete);
1
ATTACHEMNT B
Add lacrosse striping in addition to soccer striping on athletic fields to
accommodate increasing demands and allow for more flexible usage;
Design the south softball field for multi-use, with no permanent fence
defining the softball field, to allow flexible use for softball and soccer;
Allow walking/biking access point to the park from the south end near the
bus station drop off point, expanding access to and from the transportation
depot and the downtown area;
Install necessary underground infrastructure, including electrical conduit
and water lines to the northern and southern ends of the park, for efficient
installation of future park improvements.
In addition to the items above, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends
the following improvements:
Building capacity of current park assets
Add lights to the soccer/lacrosse field to allow for night games. This new
usage would relieve scheduling pressure for athletic fields and also
encourage a more organized public presence in the park after dark;
Replace or remodel bathroom (this should include timed locks) due to its
poor condition. Better maintained facilities will welcome new users to the
park and improve users’ park experience;
Add an access point by the rail crossing north/east of the park to
encourage and facilitate more neighborhood usage by the downtown north
community;
Install a scoreboard on the softball field and possibly a new
storage/scorekeeper shed;
Provide a backstop for the softball field that will not interfere with Little
League play.
Satisfy unmet needs for recreation in Palo Alto
Design a dog exercise area at the undeveloped north or south end of the
park: Northern end of the park was preferred for a dog exercise area over
the southern end due to easier access for nearby neighborhoods. This area
is already fenced on three sides, so construction would be minimal, (fence
the north end of the park, past the soccer field, right of the walking path),
while meeting a well established community need. There are currently no
off-leash dog recreation alternatives in north Palo Alto.
Add a walking track around one or both fields, non-asphalt, i.e.
decomposed granite to encourage more neighborhood use of the park.
2
ATTACHEMNT B
3
Use all of the available park space
Improve the southwest end of the park by adding a passive grassy area for
BBQs and picnics. This would be useful for teams to use after games or
for other users of the park to enjoy;
Commemorate the Olympic Grove of Redwood Trees at the north end of the
park;
Improve the southern unused area of the park for other recreation uses
such as outdoor volleyball courts or a BMX track.
These preliminary recommendations are based on discussions at multiple Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings, but lack the benefit of a public outreach meeting
dedicated to discussing improvements to El Camino Park. We believe such a public
meeting is an important step that should precede any final recommendations or
decisions about specific park renovations. Because the design process is moving
forward apace, however, the Commission recommends that public outreach proceed
in parallel to investigation of supplemental funding opportunities.
The Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission understands that improving El
Camino Park is just one of many infrastructure projects facing the City.
Nonetheless, the planned Reservoir Project construction at El Camino Park creates
an unusual opportunity to optimize resources and minimize disruption by making
park improvements in conjunction with reservoir upgrades. The Commission’s
above recommendations include a variety of improvements, both small and large,
that will build capacity by maximizing park assets, serve ongoing unmet recreational
needs, and improve park access and usage. It makes sense to fund park
improvements now. The Commission strongly encourages the City to capitalize on
this opportunity.
ATTACHMENT C
Green means in process or completed
Existing CIP's FY 2011- 2015
Prop
o
s
ed
FY
Co
un
c
il
Di
r
ec
tion
Co
mmis
sion
Priori
t
y
Impac
t Fe
e
To
p
Te
n
20
0
7
Essen
t
ia
l
Mainten
a
n
ce
He
alt
h
&
Saf
ety
Le
g
al
Mand
a
t
e
Estim
at ed
Co
st
Pot
ent
ia
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Sou
rc
e
Existing CIP's Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvements 2012 X X 267,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Gym Activity Room 2011 65,000$ General Fund
Completed - CIP
accommodated a
displaced tenant w/
revenue to offset
expenditure
Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical
Upgrades (Gyms & Auditorium)2013 X X X 1,300,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Restrooms 2011 X 300,000$ General Fund
Foothills Park Interpretive Center
Improvements 2011 X X 210,000$ General Fund
Lucie Stern Mechanical Systems 2013-14 X X X 500,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Pool Locker Room 2015 X X 300,000$ Partnership
Ventura Building Improvements 2011-2012 X X X 690,000$ General Fund
Only $90,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Parks & Open Space
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Landscaping 2011-2015 X 700,000$ General Fund
Only $100,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
City Park Improvements 2012-2015 X X 1,170,000$ General Fund
Cogswell Plaza Improvements 2011 X 150,000$ General Fund Irrigation
Foothills Park Road Improvements 2012 X 150,000$ General Fund
Hopkins Park Improvements 2012 X 95,000$ General Fund Irrigation
Monroe Park Improvements 2011 X 250,000$ General Fund
Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and
Repair 2011-2015 X X 500,000$ General Fund
Trail System. Only
$100,000 for FY 2011
has been approved
Open Space Lakes & Ponds
Maintenance 2012, 2014 X X X 110,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT C
Open Space Trails & Amenities 2011-2015 X X 741,000$ General Fund
May also be augmented
w/ grants. Only $116,000
for FY 2011 has been
approved
Park & Open Space Emergency
Repairs 2011-2015 X X 375,000$ General Fund
Only $75,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Park Restroom Installation 2011, 2013 X 440,000$ Impact Fees
Only $220,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Rinconada Park Improvements 2012 X 775,000$ General Fund
Project deferred pending
Master Plan
Scott Park Improvements 2012 X 100,000$ General Fund
Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf
Replacement 2014 X 500,000$ General Fund
Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 2011-2015 X 150,000$ General Fund
Only $30,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Ventura Community Center and Park 2011 X 135,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT C
New Proposed CIP's FY 2012- 2016
Prop
o
s
ed
FY
Co
un
c
il
Di
r
ec
tion
Co
mmis
sion
Priori
t
y
Impac
t Fe
e
To
p
Te
n
20
0
7
Essen
t
ia
l
Mainten
a
n
ce
He
alt
h
&
Saf
ety
Le
g
al
Mand
a
t
e
Estim
at ed
Co
st
Pot
ent
ia
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Sou
rc
e
New Proposed / For
Consideration Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Parks Maintenance and Public
Works Tree Maintenance Building
Improvements 2012 X X X 375,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Auditorium Roof 2015 X 151,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Site Wide Electrical
Replacement 2015-2016 X X X 1,150,000$ General Fund
Parks & Open Space
Magical Bridge Playground 2012 X 1,300,000$ Partnership Friends of PA Parks
Tree Well Irrigation 2013-2014 1,200,000$ General Fund
Pardee and Wallis Parks Safety and
Accessibility 2012 X 740,000$ General Fund
Backflow Device Installation
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Netting 2012 50,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Tree Maintenance 2012-2016 X X 225,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Park Master Plan 2012-2013 40,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Cart Paths 2012, 2014 292,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT C
CIP Needs to be Addressed
Prop
o
s
ed
FY
Co
un
c
il
Di
r
ec
tion
Co
mmis
sion
Priori
t
y
Impac
t Fe
e
To
p
Te
n
20
0
7
Essen
t
ia
l
Mainten
a
n
ce
He
alt
h
&
Saf
ety
Le
g
al
Mand
a
t
e
Estim
at ed
Co
st
Pot
ent
ia
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Sou
rc
e
Needs to be Addressed Notes
Land & Land Improvements
Buildings & Facilities
Mitchell Park Community Center
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 2012 X
Private &
Impact Fees
Parks & Open Space
El Camino Park 2012 X X
Synthetic Turf on Soccer
Filed on the Impact Fee
Top Ten list
Byxbee Park Phase II - Trails 2012-2013 X 275,000$ Impact Fees
Miscellaneous
ATTACHMENT C
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2007
Co
mmis
sion
Priori
t
y
Pub
lic
Ne
ed
Exter
na
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
He
alt
h
&
Saf
ety
Co
un
c
il
Di
r
ec
tion
Le
g
all
y
Re
qu
i
r
ed
Impac
t Fe
e
Co
nt ribut
io
n
/
Estim
at
e
Notes
Parks
Stanford / Palo Alto Playing Fields X X X X X 212,000$
Heritage Park Play Structure XX X
Greer Park Phase IV XXX X
Seale Park Restroom X X X X 440,000$
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X 440,000$
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting XXX
Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X 850,000$
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities: Gymnasium,
Skate Bowl Improvements, Additional
Tennis Courts at Greer, Bocce Ball
courts at Mitchell
Notes
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom
installations, not just at Seale Park.
Community outreach concluded restrooms at this park
was not desired.
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at
Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000 was to be
funded by Impact Fees.
Green means in process or completed
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2006
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
on
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ne
e
d
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
Fun
d
i
n
g
He
a
l
t
h
&
Sa
f
e
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Leg
a
l
l
y
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
Imp
a
c
t
Fe
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
Parks
Stanford / Palo Alto Playing
Fields X X X X X #######
Heritage Park Play Structure X X X
Greer Park Phase IV X X X X
Seale Park Restroom X X X X #######
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X #######
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting X X X
Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X #######
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic
Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future
Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities:
Gymnasium, Skate Bowl
Improvements, Additional Tennis
Courts at Greer, Bocce Ball
courts at Mitchell
Green means in process or completed
Prioritization - from 2006
Fe
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n/E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Notes
Community outreach concluded restrooms at
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations,
not just at Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000
was to be funded by Impact Fees.
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom
Notes
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 1
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 22, 2011
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present: Deidre Crommie, Sunny Dykwel, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing, Pat
Markevitch, Daria Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Paul Losch
Others Present: Council Karen Holman
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do, Rob de
Geus
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: Chair Walsh was absent at the
beginning of the meeting and Vice-Chair Crommie filled in for her until her arrival.
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Burt Liebert spoke on adding a Community Garden in the
South area of Palo Alto. He would like to see an effort made to find an area to create garden
space in south Palo Alto.
Paul Heft spoke in support of the idea of creating garden space in South Palo Alto further
helping with climate change.
Annette Isaacson spoke in support of creating more garden space, specifically in the
Southern part of Palo Alto.
IV. BUSINESS:
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from January 25, 2011 regular meeting – The draft
minutes for the January 25, 2011 regular meeting were approved as amended.
Approved 5:0
2. Recommendation to approve an update to the Parks Rules and Regulations– Staff
Betts requested that Commissioner Hetterly report on this topic as the lead for the sub-
committee which consisted of staff Betts, Commissioners Markevitch, Hetterly and
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 2
Dykwel. Commissioner Hetterly discussed the main changes that were made consisting
of some clarifying language and edits to specific areas. Changes were made in the
section of R1-10A Lytton, Cogswell and King Plaza – allowing for 4 tables at Cogswell,
10 tables at Lytton, and 20 tables at King Plaza; clarified the language on R1-28
Smoking to read “any public places or any area”. Revised section R1-32 Dog Exercise
Area to conform to the hours of Park opening and closing hours. The committee also
discussed the need for the Commission to review the Community Garden rules for
future revisions at a later date, noting that it will need adequate time for Community
outreach and special considerations.
Commissioner Dykwel brought up a concern that came up in the Business Approvement
District Parking Committee meeting today. The issue was on the electrical control box
located at Lytton Plaza and how it is being utilized. Staff Betts referred to section R1-
34 Use of Utilities that would remedy the concern that the Parking Committee had. He
said that a policy would be set up through the Lucie Stern Community Center for the
check out of a key for the box. Commissioner Dykwel also mentioned that the
Parking Committee would also like some signage be placed at the site and on the City’s
web site with this information. Staff Betts felt that this request wouldn’t be a problem
to put in place.
Council Holman directed a question on the section of R1-26 Littering, wanting to know
if gum, cigarette butts, and spitting were considered littering under this section. Staff
Betts referring to Title 22 in the Municipal Code which provides a broad explanation on
what is constituted as littering. He also added that this violation held the largest fine
associated with it. Staff Anderson also provided feedback noting that he or any other
Ranger would not cite someone in an open space or park setting for spitting.
Motion made by Commissioner Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Dykwel.
The Parks and Recreation Commission approve the update to the Park Rules
and Regulations as presented. Approved 5:0
3. Presentation of the Capital Improvement Plan for Community Services Open
Space, Parks and Recreation, and consideration to recommend to Council the use
of Park Impact Fees to fund a portion of El Camino Park improvements related to
the El Camino Park Reservoir Project – Staff de Geus introduced the item and
provided a brief summary adding that the El Camino Park reservoir project has been to
the Commission five times with updates from the Utility department on the project. The
staff report provided in the Commissioners packet will be used to relay specifics to this
topic. He added that the Utility department is responsible for putting the park back to
its original condition before the project. This project provides an opportunity to possibly
make improvements using impact fees and other potential funding sources.
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 3
Staff will provide the Commissioners with possible scenarios for the use of these
impact fees using the suggestions the Commissioners provided at past meetings on this
topic. Staff Do, Business Manager for Community Services was introduced and went
over the CIP and the impact fees available with the Commission. Jennifer Cioffi,
Project Manager for Utilities went over the revised plans that included the
Commissioners changes. The Commissioners interjected questions and comments that
included questions on the pedestrian/bike path routes around and to the park, the field
sizes, parking, and when the expiration of the lease for the land was.
Staff Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks and Golf Division reviewed
the staff’s recommendation for the impact fees available for the use at El Camino Park
with the Commission. An updated cost assessment was handed out reviewing the
highlighted improvement areas that meet the criteria for Park Impact fee use. Staff
Anderson went over both option A & B, the improvements totaled $1,748,000 and
consisted of:
ATTACHMENT
design fees = $75,000
removal of trees = $72,000
soccer catchment fence and netting = $175,000
rubber mulch areas = $12,000
new storage building = $19,000
additional parking = $73,000
artificial turf softball/multi-use field = $998,000
extended D.G. pathway (around soccer field) = $11,000
extended D.G. pathway lighting = $23,000
soccer field lights (option electric conduit footings only $72,000) = $266,000
picnic areas = $24,000
He explained to the Commission that staff was recommending Option A, which
consisted of adding artificial turf to the softball/multi use field, not including the DG
pathways around the soccer field, the pathway lighting, and the picnic areas. This
would use the total impact fees of $1,496,000. He added that there was the possibility of
using the existing Trails CIP and the Benches and Signs CIP to fund the pathway and
picnic tables if the Commission wanted to. Option B included everything except the
artificial turf softball/multi-use field costing $998,000.
After staff Anderson’s discussion, oral communications was allowed from the public.
Ute Engelke spoke on her concern for the pedestrian access crossing Alma to Menlo
Park included in the presentation made by Jennifer Cioffi and would like to see this area
addressed further.
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 4
The Commissioners discussed the Options presented to them A & B and the costs
associated with these choices. The Commissioners then proceeded to make a motion.
Motion 1: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Dykwel. Failed 2:4
Motion 2: Commissioner Hetterly made a motion to accept Option B and omit
11,000, 23,000, and 24,000 using only $882,000 of the impact fees,
seconded by Commissioner Lauing. Failed 3:3
Motion 3: Commissioner Markevitch made a motion to accept Option A, seconded by
Commissioner Walsh Failed 1:5
Motion 4: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Crommie Passed 4:2
4. Update on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force– Commissioner Markevitch
a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force reported on what they have been working on.
She provided a handout to the Commissioners and pointed out some details from it. She
informed the Commission that the City has a backlog of infrastructure going out to 2028
for half a billion dollars. The portion related to Parks and Open Spaces is 38 million
leaving 301 million in back log with a balance of 148 million for future infrastructure
needs. The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force separated themselves out into three
sub committees, the finance subcommittee, at ground subcommittee, and above ground
subcommittee. They are looking at how we got where we are, what we can do in the
future to prevent it. They meet every two weeks. More information can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/infrastructure_blue_ribbon_commissi
on.asp.
5. Recommend a PARC Commissioner represent the Commission at the Planning and
Transportation Commissioner Study session on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan -
Chair Walsh reviewed with the Commission the purpose of the item tonight. It
was discussed in past meetings that the PARC wanted to have a joint meeting with the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Upon some discussion with the Chair of the
Planning and Transportations Commission he informed us that they would be only
discussing the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan at their next meeting, February 23rd. The
Planning and Transportation Commission would be up for having a joint meeting when
we could schedule something. It was decided to elect a PARC representative to attend
the meeting on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan. Commissioner Markevitch made a
motion to elect Commissioner Crommie, seconded by Commissioner Lauing.
Passed 6:0
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 5
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Commissioner Markevitch reported that she read that the League of Women Voters had
a meeting tonight to discuss the history of the Baylands, history of the Master Plan. The
next scheduled meeting is on the same night the PRC will meet. She suggested that
maybe a Commissioner could be sent. It was agreed to wait until agenda planning to
discuss.
2. Commissioner Dykwel reported as the Liaison for the school district. Subjects at the
meeting pertained to open enrollment, zoning, and teen mental health. She informed the
Commission that there is a report that they can get called the City Efforts and
Accomplishments Report 2010.
3. Commissioner Dykwel reported on the Mitchell Park Library, the Art Center renovation.
4. Bringing up Bicyclists – Free March 8th and March 15th
5. Teen Event – first high school event of its kind – “Ignite”, March 4th, Staff de Geus will
report back on it next month. *Looking for volunteers.*
6. Commissioner Crommie reported for the Urban Trails subcommittee.
7. Commissioner Crommie reported on an unsafe condition she encountered when she was
at the Arastradero Preserve with trails being closed and unsafe off road bicyclists.
8. Council Holman asked a question related to the mitigation for the golf course and when
it would be coming to the PRC. Staff de Geus responded by providing some details to
the levy and hiring an architect.
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING ON April 26, 2011
1. Baylands update
2. Bicycle Master Plan
3. Community Garden
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 10:44pm
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1389)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1389)
Summary Title: Gas Main Replacement Project 18/1 9A
Title: Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Daleo Inc. in an
Amount of $4,042,637.15 for Gas Main Replacement Capital Improvement
Program GS-08011 Project 18 and GS-09002 Project 19A in Crescent Park,
Charleston Terrace, Charleston Meadows, Ventura, Green Acres, and Research
Park Subdivisions.
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached contract with Daleo Inc. (Attachment A) in not to exceed amount of
$4,042,637.15 for the Capital Improvement Program GS-08011 (GMR Project 18) and GS-09002
(GMR Project 19/A).
Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Daleo Inc. for related
additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project, the total value of which
shall not exceed $606,395.57.
Executive Summary
Bid Name/Number Gas Main Replacement Project 18, CIP GS-08011 and
Gas Main Replacement Project 19A, CIP GS-09002 IFB
Number 140149
Proposed Length of Project 300 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 22
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 12
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid
Meeting
10
Number of Bids Received:6
Bid Price Range From a low of $4,042,637.15 to a high of $6,274,594.00
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1389)
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $4,042,637.15 submitted
by Daleo Inc. be accepted and that Daleo Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The
bid is 25.5 percent below the staff engineer's estimate of $5,428,865.95. The contingency
amount of $606,395.57, which equals 15 percent of the total contract, is requested for
additional unforeseen work that may develop during the project. Due to the complexity of the
project, staff anticipates additional change orders associated with the work to be performed on
Charleston Road between Fabian Way and Commercial Street, on Arastradero Road between
Foothill Expressway and Deer Creek Road, and on El Camino Real between Los Robles Avenue
and Charleston Road.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found no significant complaints.
Background
The project targets acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) mains that have caused additional
maintenance problems and expense due to their brittle pipe walls and non-circular shape. Over
time, these mains have developed an elliptical shape with brittle sidewalls. Repairs to these
oddly shaped mains is time consuming and difficult. Accelerated replacement of ABS mains and
services are required to remain on the City of Palo Alto (City)’s planned CIP schedule. ABS
material failures will continue to contribute to increasing gas maintenance expenses associated
with gas leaks.
Discussion
The work to be performed under the contract is for installation of approximately 38,563 linear
feet of new polyethylene (PE) gas main, 259 new customer services, and service stubs to
reconnect 52 existing customer PE services within the City limits of Palo Alto and in Los Altos
Hills on Arastradero Road between Page Mill Road and Gate B of the Arastradero Preserve to
replace the existing City gas main (project locations are shown in Attachment C).
Replacing the gas distribution system with PE pipe will eliminate leaks in the project areas and
reduce loads on the existing cathodic protection system (corrosion control system on the steel
mains), thereby extending its useful life. Larger size mains will increase distribution system
reliability.
The work is being performed by contract because the project resource requirements are
beyond the City’s personnel and equipment capacity.
Resource Impact
Funds for this capital project are available in the Gas Capital Improvement Program budgets GS-
08011 (Project 18) and GS-09002 (Project 19A). This project includes funding transfers of
$96,500 to the General Fund for Street Cut Fees.
Project Coordination
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1389)
The work for the project has been and will continue to be coordinated with the Public Works
Department at the monthly Utilities/Public Works coordination meetings. Project coordination
within the City is enhanced by using the City’s Geographical Information System Project
Coordinator Program for staff discussions on potential project conflicts. The project conflicts
are resolved by staff at the monthly coordination meetings. Staff’s GMR Projects 18 and 19A
communications will include project notifications mailed to all residents and businesses along
the project alignment. Links to the GMR Projects 18 and 19A website will be included in the
mailed project notifications. Construction on the project will most likely start in June 2011.
Policy Implications
The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies. This recommendation is
consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy No. 1, “Operate
distribution system in a cost effective manner,” Strategy No. 7, “Implement programs that
improve the quality of the environment” and Objective No. 2, “Invest in utility infrastructure to
deliver reliable service.”
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (b) repair, maintenance of existing facilities and 15302 (c)
replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Contract C11140149 Daleo (PDF)
·Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)
·Attachment C: Project Location Maps (PDF)
Prepared By:Aleksandr Pishchik, Manager
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Rev. August 3, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C11140149
City of Palo Alto
and
DALEO, INC.
PROJECT
GAS MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 18/19A
Rev. August 3, 2010 K.C11140149.DOC i
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1
1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2
SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................2
6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3
6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3
6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3
6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3
6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3
6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3
6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3
7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3
7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4
7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4
7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4
Rev. August 3, 2010 K.C11140149.DOC ii
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4
9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4
9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6
13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6
13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6
13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................6
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................7
14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................7
14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8
14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9
14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................10
15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................10
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................10
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11
Rev. August 3, 2010 K.C11140149.DOC iii
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................11
16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12
16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................12
16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................12
16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................13
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................13
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14
17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................14
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15
SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15
Rev. August 3, 2010 K.C11140149.DOC iv
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15
SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................15
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................15
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
K.C11140149.DOC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 2, 2011 (“Execution Date”) by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and DALEO,
INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a Class A General Engineer duly organized and in good standing in the
State of California, Contractor’s License Number 458944. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed
by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On March 14, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Gas
Main Replacement Project 18/19A (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Gas Main Replacement Project 18/19A ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”)
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 2
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 3
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within three hundred calendar days (300) after the commencement date specified
in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents in the Contract Sum of Four Million Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred
Thirty Seven Dollars and Fifteen Cents($4,042,637.15).
X [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternate.]
4 Rev. August 3,
2010
K.C11140149.DOC
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 5
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 6
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
Or
X City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attn: Aleksandr Pishchik
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Aleksandr Pishchik
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 7
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 8
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through
Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 9
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 10
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 12
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the
Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 13
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction 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 Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
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.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s 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 attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
Rev. August 3, 2010
K.C11140149.DOC 17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
DALEO, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BID SUMMARY Attachment B (Page 1)
GAS MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 18, CIP GS-0811; GAS MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 19A, CIP GS-09002; CONTRACT C0 Bid Date: 04-05-11
BID SUMMARY
Item Quantity Description Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended
No. (ft/each)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)
A: BASE BID
1 14,167 Install 6" PE pipe by directional boring method $134.55 $1,906,169.85 $63.60 $901,021.20 $67.50 $956,272.50 $84.00 $1,190,028.00
2 3,117 Install 4" PE pipe by directional boring method $72.50 $225,982.50 $57.60 $179,539.20 $62.00 $193,254.00 $52.00 $162,084.00
3 10,220 Install 2" PE pipe by directional boring method $67.30 $687,806.00 $44.20 $451,724.00 $47.00 $480,340.00 $44.00 $449,680.00
4 1 Install 6" PE service to 900 Arastradero Road (350)$50,000.00 $50,000.00 $16,200.00 $16,200.00 $16,160.00 $16,160.00 $37,000.00 $37,000.00
5 1 Install 4" PE service to 3500 Deer Creek Rd (130)$10,125.00 $10,125.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $14,200.00 $14,200.00 $14,590.00 $14,590.00
6 1 Install 4" PE service to 3420 Hillview Ave (400)$30,000.00 $30,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,250.00 $15,250.00 $20,900.00 $20,900.00
7 1 Install 2" PE service to 3475 Deer Creek Road (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $9,400.00 $9,400.00 $11,770.00 $11,770.00
8 1 Install 2" PE service 695 Arastradero Road $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $10,970.00 $10,970.00
9 1 Install 2" PE service 1070 Arastradero Road (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,150.00 $7,150.00 $11,680.00 $11,680.00
10 1 Install 2" PE service 3406 Hillview Avenue (200)$14,000.00 $14,000.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $7,400.00 $7,400.00 $12,390.00 $12,390.00
11 1 Install 2" PE service 3408 Hillview Avenue (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $11,180.00 $11,180.00
12 1 Install 2" PE service 4249 El Camino Real (40)$3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $7,100.00 $7,100.00 $6,200.00 $6,200.00
13 8 Install 1" PE services (1-1/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,500.00 $20,000.00 $2,920.00 $23,360.00 $3,900.00 $31,200.00 $4,600.00 $36,800.00
14 7 Install 1" PE services (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,250.00 $15,750.00 $2,800.00 $19,600.00 $3,900.00 $27,300.00 $4,400.00 $30,800.00
15 112 Install 1" PE services $2,200.00 $246,400.00 $2,800.00 $313,600.00 $3,525.00 $394,800.00 $4,350.00 $487,200.00
16 1 1" PE services to curb locations (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$3,415.00 $3,415.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $3,850.00 $3,850.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00
17 36 Install 1" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 1" PE services $2,000.00 $72,000.00 $2,200.00 $79,200.00 $3,780.00 $136,080.00 $4,100.00 $147,600.00
18 5 Install 2" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 2" PE services $3,105.00 $15,525.00 $2,200.00 $11,000.00 $4,750.00 $23,750.00 $4,300.00 $21,500.00
19 1 Install 4" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 4" PE services $7,250.00 $7,250.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $23,449.50 $23,449.50 $4,650.00 $4,650.00
20 1 Install 6" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 6" PE services $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $15,800.00 $15,800.00 $4,950.00 $4,950.00
21 100 Modify existing natural gas house plumbing (Journeyman)$150.00 $15,000.00 $150.00 $15,000.00 $250.00 $25,000.00 $242.00 $24,200.00
22 100 Modify existing natural gas house plumbing (Apprentice/Helper)$100.00 $10,000.00 $95.00 $9,500.00 $173.00 $17,300.00 $145.00 $14,500.00
23 10 Obtain plumbing permits, schedule inspections, and notify customers $373.00 $3,730.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $690.00 $6,900.00 $630.00 $6,300.00
24 60 Install bollards $315.00 $18,900.00 $400.00 $24,000.00 $335.00 $20,100.00 $340.00 $20,400.00
25 180 Cut and plug abandoned risers $55.00 $9,900.00 $20.00 $3,600.00 $90.00 $16,200.00 $190.00 $34,200.00
26 15 Dig potholes and install tapping tees to insert fish tape to locate gas mains $700.00 $10,500.00 $750.00 $11,250.00 $1,450.00 $21,750.00 $1,000.00 $15,000.00
27 85 Excavate tie-in/abandonment potholes and surface restoration $3,420.00 $290,700.00 $2,000.00 $170,000.00 $3,100.00 $263,500.00 $3,600.00 $306,000.00
28 1,580 Install 6" PE pipe by open trench method $160.00 $252,800.00 $225.00 $355,500.00 $141.50 $223,570.00 $115.00 $181,700.00
29 350 Install 4" PE pipe by open trench method $93.00 $32,550.00 $173.00 $60,550.00 $125.00 $43,750.00 $105.00 $36,750.00
30 1,140 Install 2" PE pipe by open trench method $85.00 $96,900.00 $87.00 $99,180.00 $120.00 $136,800.00 $95.00 $108,300.00
Total of Base Bid (items 01 through 30 only, with all applicable taxes included)$4,118,903.35 $2,794,274.40 $3,154,026.00 $3,424,722.00
B: ADD ALTERNATE BID
31 1,480 Install 8" PE pipe by directional boring method on Arastradero Rd (LAH)$150.00 $222,000.00 $86.30 $127,724.00 $93.00 $137,640.00 $110.00 $162,800.00
32 221 Install 8" PE pipe by open trench method on Arastradero Rd (LAH)$200.00 $44,200.00 $95.00 $20,995.00 $163.00 $36,023.00 $127.00 $28,067.00
33 215 Install 6" PE pipe by directional boring method on 101 $300.00 $64,500.00 $134.85 $28,992.75 $180.00 $38,700.00 $283.00 $60,845.00
34 1,756 Install 4" PE pipe by directional boring method on Quarry and ECR D $72.50 $127,310.00 $57.60 $101,145.60 $62.00 $108,872.00 $56.00 $98,336.00
35 635 Install 4" PE pipe by open trench method on Quarry & ECR D $93.00 $59,055.00 $180.00 $114,300.00 $125.00 $79,375.00 $113.00 $71,755.00
36 3,312
Install 2" PE pipe by directional boring method on Cesano, Monroe, Monroe
(Eastern A and B), and Miller $67.30 $222,897.60 $44.20 $146,390.40 $47.00 $155,664.00 $40.00 $132,480.00
37 370
Install 2" PE pipe by open trench method on Cesano, Monroe, Monroe (Eastern A
and B), and Miller $85.00 $31,450.00 $87.00 $32,190.00 $99.00 $36,630.00 $95.00 $35,150.00
38 64 Install 1" PE services $2,200.00 $140,800.00 $2,800.00 $179,200.00 $4,665.00 $298,560.00 $4,600.00 $294,400.00
39 50 Install 1" PE services at various locations in Palo Alto $2,500.00 $125,000.00 $3,500.00 $175,000.00 $3,770.00 $188,500.00 $4,400.00 $220,000.00
40 1 Install 1" PE services (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,250.00 $2,250.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $3,770.00 $3,770.00 $4,450.00 $4,450.00
41 5 Install 1" PE services (1-1/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,500.00 $12,500.00 $3,500.00 $17,500.00 $3,750.00 $18,750.00 $4,600.00 $23,000.00
42 Bid Item has been deleted $0.00
43 1 Install 2" PE service on 300 Pasteur Drive (Stanford Hospital Emergency)$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $15,750.00 $15,750.00 $21,300.00 $21,300.00
44 9 Install 1" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 1" PE services $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $2,200.00 $19,800.00 $3,780.00 $34,020.00 $4,200.00 $37,800.00
45 15 Excavate tie-in/abandonment potholes and surface restoration $3,420.00 $51,300.00 $2,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,280.00 $49,200.00 $3,600.00 $54,000.00
46 10 Replace existing utl. boxes with B40 boxes $1,150.00 $11,500.00 $1,300.00 $13,000.00 $3,500.00 $35,000.00 $1,900.00 $19,000.00
47 5 Replace existing utl. boxes with B52 boxes $1,710.00 $8,550.00 $1,700.00 $8,500.00 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,680.00 $13,400.00
48 100 Install additional pavement (Concrete)$15.00 $1,500.00 $11.00 $1,100.00 $21.00 $2,100.00 $9.00 $900.00
49 100 Install additional pavement (Asphalt Concrete)$16.00 $1,600.00 $7.00 $700.00 $21.00 $2,100.00 $17.00 $1,700.00
50 100 Install curb $31.00 $3,100.00 $17.50 $1,750.00 $34.50 $3,450.00 $34.00 $3,400.00
51 100 Install gutter $31.00 $3,100.00 $17.50 $1,750.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $34.00 $3,400.00
52 100 Install sidewalk $19.00 $1,900.00 $12.50 $1,250.00 $15.50 $1,550.00 $39.00 $3,900.00
53 20,000 Install additional pavement (thickness)$2.00 $40,000.00 $2.00 $40,000.00 $1.40 $28,000.00 $3.00 $60,000.00
54 10,000 Saw cut additional pavement (thickness)$1.00 $10,000.00 $0.22 $2,200.00 $2.75 $27,500.00 $2.00 $20,000.00
55 100 Perform additional sawcutting $2.50 $250.00 $0.75 $75.00 $2.75 $275.00 $8.00 $800.00
56 1,000 Install slurry seal $1.50 $1,500.00 $2.50 $2,500.00 $8.50 $8,500.00 $6.00 $6,000.00
57 100 Abandon old valves and anode boxes $155.00 $15,500.00 $500.00 $50,000.00 $280.00 $28,000.00 $347.00 $34,700.00
58 250 Perform GPS survey $200.00 $50,000.00 $135.00 $33,750.00 $250.00 $62,500.00 $293.00 $73,250.00
59 300 Recycling PetroMat $34.00 $10,200.00 $42.50 $12,750.00 $25.00 $7,500.00 $42.00 $12,600.00
60 50 Installation of sewer clean outs $500.00 $25,000.00 $1,565.00 $78,250.00 $550.00 $27,500.00 $898.00 $44,900.00
Total of Add Alternate Bid (Items 31 through 60 only, with all applicable taxes included)$1,309,962.60 $1,248,362.75 $1,457,929.00 $1,542,333.00
Grand Total - Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid (items 01 through 60, with all applicable taxes
included)$5,428,865.95 $4,042,637.15 $4,611,955.00 $4,967,055.00
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Daleo, Inc.Golden State Utility Co.Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc.
Page 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BID SUMMARY Attachment B (Page 2)
GAS MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 18, CIP GS-0811; GAS MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 19A, CIP GS-09002; CONTRACT C0 Bid Date: 04-05-11
BID SUMMARY
Item Quantity Description Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended
No. (ft/each)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)
($)($)($)
A: BASE BID
1 14,167 Install 6" PE pipe by directional boring method $134.55 $1,906,169.85 $120.00 $1,700,040.00 $78.00 $1,105,026.00 $142.00 $2,011,714.00
2 3,117 Install 4" PE pipe by directional boring method $72.50 $225,982.50 $74.00 $230,658.00 $78.00 $243,126.00 $131.00 $408,327.00
3 10,220 Install 2" PE pipe by directional boring method $67.30 $687,806.00 $48.00 $490,560.00 $68.00 $694,960.00 $124.00 $1,267,280.00
4 1 Install 6" PE service to 900 Arastradero Road (350)$50,000.00 $50,000.00 $54,900.00 $54,900.00 $62,000.00 $62,000.00 $2,980.00 $2,980.00
5 1 Install 4" PE service to 3500 Deer Creek Rd (130)$10,125.00 $10,125.00 $20,800.00 $20,800.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,770.00 $2,770.00
6 1 Install 4" PE service to 3420 Hillview Ave (400)$30,000.00 $30,000.00 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00
7 1 Install 2" PE service to 3475 Deer Creek Road (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $14,250.00 $14,250.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
8 1 Install 2" PE service 695 Arastradero Road $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
9 1 Install 2" PE service 1070 Arastradero Road (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
10 1 Install 2" PE service 3406 Hillview Avenue (200)$14,000.00 $14,000.00 $12,200.00 $12,200.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
11 1 Install 2" PE service 3408 Hillview Avenue (300)$21,000.00 $21,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
12 1 Install 2" PE service 4249 El Camino Real (40)$3,500.00 $3,500.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
13 8 Install 1" PE services (1-1/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,500.00 $20,000.00 $2,750.00 $22,000.00 $5,000.00 $40,000.00 $2,130.00 $17,040.00
14 7 Install 1" PE services (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,250.00 $15,750.00 $2,500.00 $17,500.00 $4,000.00 $28,000.00 $2,270.00 $15,890.00
15 112 Install 1" PE services $2,200.00 $246,400.00 $2,500.00 $280,000.00 $5,000.00 $560,000.00 $2,270.00 $254,240.00
16 1 1" PE services to curb locations (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$3,415.00 $3,415.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $2,270.00 $2,270.00
17 36 Install 1" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 1" PE services $2,000.00 $72,000.00 $4,100.00 $147,600.00 $1,950.00 $70,200.00 $710.00 $25,560.00
18 5 Install 2" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 2" PE services $3,105.00 $15,525.00 $5,700.00 $28,500.00 $1,750.00 $8,750.00 $850.00 $4,250.00
19 1 Install 4" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 4" PE services $7,250.00 $7,250.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $995.00 $995.00
20 1 Install 6" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 6" PE services $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $1,140.00 $1,140.00
21 100 Modify existing natural gas house plumbing (Journeyman)$150.00 $15,000.00 $165.00 $16,500.00 $94.00 $9,400.00 $142.00 $14,200.00
22 100 Modify existing natural gas house plumbing (Apprentice/Helper)$100.00 $10,000.00 $121.00 $12,100.00 $57.00 $5,700.00 $85.00 $8,500.00
23 10 Obtain plumbing permits, schedule inspections, and notify customers $373.00 $3,730.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 $1,050.00 $10,500.00 $285.00 $2,850.00
24 60 Install bollards $315.00 $18,900.00 $300.00 $18,000.00 $220.00 $13,200.00 $285.00 $17,100.00
25 180 Cut and plug abandoned risers $55.00 $9,900.00 $75.00 $13,500.00 $160.00 $28,800.00 $142.00 $25,560.00
26 15 Dig potholes and install tapping tees to insert fish tape to locate gas mains $700.00 $10,500.00 $675.00 $10,125.00 $1,550.00 $23,250.00 $710.00 $10,650.00
27 85 Excavate tie-in/abandonment potholes and surface restoration $3,420.00 $290,700.00 $3,500.00 $297,500.00 $2,350.00 $199,750.00 $1,420.00 $120,700.00
28 1,580 Install 6" PE pipe by open trench method $160.00 $252,800.00 $170.00 $268,600.00 $183.00 $289,140.00 $185.00 $292,300.00
29 350 Install 4" PE pipe by open trench method $93.00 $32,550.00 $200.00 $70,000.00 $230.00 $80,500.00 $178.00 $62,300.00
30 1,140 Install 2" PE pipe by open trench method $85.00 $96,900.00 $148.00 $168,720.00 $135.00 $153,900.00 $142.00 $161,880.00
Total of Base Bid (items 01 through 30 only, with all applicable taxes included)$4,118,903.35 $3,974,003.00 $3,897,052.00 $4,748,031.00
B: ADD ALTERNATE BID
31 1,480 Install 8" PE pipe by directional boring method on Arastradero Rd (LAH)$150.00 $222,000.00 $130.00 $192,400.00 $109.00 $161,320.00 $156.00 $230,880.00
32 221 Install 8" PE pipe by open trench method on Arastradero Rd (LAH)$200.00 $44,200.00 $130.00 $28,730.00 $254.00 $56,134.00 $199.00 $43,979.00
33 215 Install 6" PE pipe by directional boring method on 101 $300.00 $64,500.00 $205.00 $44,075.00 $275.00 $59,125.00 $142.00 $30,530.00
34 1,756 Install 4" PE pipe by directional boring method on Quarry and ECR D $72.50 $127,310.00 $85.00 $149,260.00 $75.00 $131,700.00 $131.00 $230,036.00
35 635 Install 4" PE pipe by open trench method on Quarry & ECR D $93.00 $59,055.00 $125.00 $79,375.00 $175.00 $111,125.00 $178.00 $113,030.00
36 3,312
Install 2" PE pipe by directional boring method on Cesano, Monroe, Monroe
(Eastern A and B), and Miller $67.30 $222,897.60 $50.00 $165,600.00 $70.00 $231,840.00 $124.00 $410,688.00
37 370
Install 2" PE pipe by open trench method on Cesano, Monroe, Monroe (Eastern A
and B), and Miller $85.00 $31,450.00 $140.00 $51,800.00 $154.00 $56,980.00 $178.00 $65,860.00
38 64 Install 1" PE services $2,200.00 $140,800.00 $2,600.00 $166,400.00 $3,500.00 $224,000.00 $2,270.00 $145,280.00
39 50 Install 1" PE services at various locations in Palo Alto $2,500.00 $125,000.00 $3,500.00 $175,000.00 $3,500.00 $175,000.00 $2,270.00 $113,500.00
40 1 Install 1" PE services (3/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,250.00 $2,250.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,270.00 $2,270.00
41 5 Install 1" PE services (1-1/4" risers with bypass assemblies)$2,500.00 $12,500.00 $2,700.00 $13,500.00 $4,500.00 $22,500.00 $2,130.00 $10,650.00
42 Bid Item has been deleted
43 1 Install 2" PE service on 300 Pasteur Drive (Stanford Hospital Emergency)$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $2,485.00 $2,485.00
44 9 Install 1" PE service stubs to reconnect existing 1" PE services $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $4,100.00 $36,900.00 $1,800.00 $16,200.00 $710.00 $6,390.00
45 15 Excavate tie-in/abandonment potholes and surface restoration $3,420.00 $51,300.00 $3,900.00 $58,500.00 $1,900.00 $28,500.00 $1,420.00 $21,300.00
46 10 Replace existing utl. boxes with B40 boxes $1,150.00 $11,500.00 $1,750.00 $17,500.00 $1,400.00 $14,000.00 $500.00 $5,000.00
47 5 Replace existing utl. boxes with B52 boxes $1,710.00 $8,550.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $2,100.00 $10,500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00
48 100 Install additional pavement (Concrete)$15.00 $1,500.00 $14.00 $1,400.00 $42.00 $4,200.00 $14.00 $1,400.00
49 100 Install additional pavement (Asphalt Concrete)$16.00 $1,600.00 $15.00 $1,500.00 $31.00 $3,100.00 $14.00 $1,400.00
50 100 Install curb $31.00 $3,100.00 $28.00 $2,800.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $43.00 $4,300.00
51 100 Install gutter $31.00 $3,100.00 $32.00 $3,200.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $43.00 $4,300.00
52 100 Install sidewalk $19.00 $1,900.00 $18.00 $1,800.00 $14.00 $1,400.00 $21.00 $2,100.00
53 20,000 Install additional pavement (thickness)$2.00 $40,000.00 $1.50 $30,000.00 $1.75 $35,000.00 $0.50 $10,000.00
54 10,000 Saw cut additional pavement (thickness)$1.00 $10,000.00 $0.30 $3,000.00 $0.35 $3,500.00 $0.20 $2,000.00
55 100 Perform additional sawcutting $2.50 $250.00 $2.00 $200.00 $1.40 $140.00 $0.85 $85.00
56 1,000 Install slurry seal $1.50 $1,500.00 $1.00 $1,000.00 $4.20 $4,200.00 $1.40 $1,400.00
57 100 Abandon old valves and anode boxes $155.00 $15,500.00 $150.00 $15,000.00 $1,150.00 $115,000.00 $142.00 $14,200.00
58 250 Perform GPS survey $200.00 $50,000.00 $145.00 $36,250.00 $110.00 $27,500.00 $142.00 $35,500.00
59 300 Recycling PetroMat $34.00 $10,200.00 $12.00 $3,600.00 $69.00 $20,700.00 $10.00 $3,000.00
60 50 Installation of sewer clean outs $500.00 $25,000.00 $1,600.00 $80,000.00 $1,200.00 $60,000.00 $250.00 $12,500.00
Total of Add Alternate Bid (Items 31 through 60 only, with all applicable taxes included)$1,309,962.60 $1,377,090.00 $1,603,164.00 $1,526,563.00
Grand Total - Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid (items 01 through 60, with all applicable taxes
included)$5,428,865.95 $5,351,093.00 $5,500,216.00 $6,274,594.00
Ranger Pipelines Inc.Underground Construction Co, Inc.West Valley ConstructionENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1640)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1640)
Summary Title: BID Re-Authorization
Title: Public Hearing to Hear Objections to the Levy of Proposed Assessments on
the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of a
Resolution Confirming the Report of the Advisory Board and Levying Assessment
for Fiscal Year 2012 on the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Hold a public hearing on the levy of proposed assessments in Fiscal Year
2012 in connection with the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement
District; and
2.Approve a resolution confirming the report of the Advisory board and levying
an assessment for Fiscal Year 2012 on the Downtown Palo Alto Business
Improvement District.
Background
On April 11, 2011, the City Council
·Adopted a resolution preliminarily approving the report filed by the Palo Alto
Downtown Business Improvement District Advisory Board for the Fiscal Year
2012;
·Adopted a resolution of intention to levy the annual assessment for 2011-2012;
and
·Set May 2, 2011 at 7:00pm or soon thereafter, as the date and time for the
public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments.
Discussion
The City Council is required to annually hold a public hearing, approve the Advisory
Board Annual report, and determine whether or not to levy the annual assessment for
the Palo Alto Downtown business Improvement District (BID).
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1640)
The BID is required by State law to be authorized annually. As such, it is not possible
under state BID law to implement capital projects that extend longer than one year.
Traditionally, funds generated from Business Improvement Districts are used for
marketing, promotions, maintenance, and beautification of business districts.
The assessments levied on businesses in the BID are based on the size, type, and
location of downtown businesses. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, retailers and
restaurants pay a larger assessment because they receive more benefit from the
activities undertaken in the business district. For example, a small-large retailer/
restaurant would pay $225 to $450, while a small-large professional business (architect,
accountant, etc) pay in the $50 to $225 range. Professional businesses pay the least
since they receive less benefit from the BID.
Absent a majority protest at the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution
approving the report for Fiscal Year 2012 as filed or as modified by the Council at the
conclusion of the public hearing. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying
of the BID assessments for Fiscal Year 2012.
The staff report (April 11, 2011) is attached and describes the actions related to the
BID, including the report of the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional
Association (PADBPA) to the City Council (Attachment 1)
Resource Impacts
Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not directly impact City revenue. BID
assessments are restricted to exclusive use by the BID. A healthy BID will typically
encourage growth of the retail community and consequently result in additional sales
tax revenue for the City. Minimal staff effort is expended annually to administer the
collection of the BID.
Staff will continue to monitor adminitrative time devoted to the collection of BID
assessments to assure that City costs do not exceed estimates for these services. The
cost and collection of BID assessments past 60 days is absorbed by the BID.
The Attorney’s Office will continue to provide legal oversight to the BID during the
annual reathorization process. Administrative Services and/or Planning Department
staff provide assistance in the collection of BID assessments. The Economic
Development Manager will continue to provide oversight of the BID and will prepare the
annual reauthorization.
Environmental Review
This action by the City Council does not meet the definition of a project under Section
21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore no environmental
assessment is necessary.
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1640)
Attachments:
·BID CMR_4-11-11_no reso (PDF)
·RESO Confirming Rpt of BID to Levy Assess FY 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By:Thomas Fehrenbach, Econ Dev Mgr
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1558)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2011
April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1558)
Summary Title: BID Preliminary Re-Authorization
Title: Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year
2012 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District
and Adoption of Resolution Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment
Against Businesses within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement
District for Fiscal Year 2012 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on
May 2, at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council:
(a) Preliminarily approve the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board’s
2012 Budget Report for the BID (Attachment 1) and;
(b) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown
Business Improvement District for fiscal year 2012, setting a date and time for
the public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments for May 2, 2011, at
7:00 PM, or thereafter, in the City Council Chambers (Attachment 3)
Executive Summary
This Council action includes a preliminary approval of the BID Board’s annual report,
and sets a time and place for a public hearing for the staff presentation, and to
determine any objections to the assessments.
Since the BID inception in 2004, a number of activities consistent with State BID law
have been accomplished by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional
Association (PADBPA), the entity with which the City contracts to provide services to the
800+ businesses assessed in the Downtown. These include addressing the three main
issues facing downtown businesses: cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness, as well as
participation in zoning and other matters affecting downtown businesses.
Assessments for BID businesses are based on the size, type and location of the
business. Assessments range from $50 for individually owned professional businesses
to $500 annually for financial institutions. The PADBPA has monthly open meetings
governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act which any business or individual can attend.
April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1558)
Background
The Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by the
City Council in 2004 pursuant to the California Parking and business Improvement Area
Law to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto
Downtown business district. The Council appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo
Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), a non-profit
corporation, as the Advisory Board for the BID. The Board’s purpose is to advise the
Council on the method and basis for levy of assessments in the BID and the
expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments.
Pursuant to BID law, the Advisory Board must annually submit to the Council a report
that proposes a budget for the upcoming fiscal year for the BID. The report must: 1)
propose any boundary changes in the BID; 2) list the improvements and activities to be
provided in the fiscal year; 3) estimate the cost to provide the improvements and
activities; 4) set forth the method and basis for levy of assessments; 5) identify surplus
or deficit revenues carried over from the prior fiscal year; and 6) identify amounts of
contributions from sources other than assessments.
The Council must then: 1) review the report and preliminarily approve it as proposed or
as changed by the Council; 2) adopt a resolution of intention to levy the assessments
for the upcoming fiscal year; and 3) set a date and time for the public hearing on the
levy of assessments in the BID. Absent a majority protest at the public hearing on May
2, 2011, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution
confirming the report for Fiscal Year 2012 as filed or as modified by the Council. The
adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for fiscal year
2012.
Discussion
The Advisory Board has prepared a report (Attachment 1) for the Council’s
consideration which includes the proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for
fiscal year 2012. As required by BID law, the report has been filed with the City Clerk
and contains a list of the improvements, activities, and associated costs proposed in the
BID for fiscal year 2012. The Advisory Board has recommended no change in the BID
boundaries or the method and basis for levying assessments.
A map of the BID is attached (Attachment 2). The proposed assessments in the BID for
fiscal year 2011 are the same as the assessments in fiscal year 2010-2011. No
increases are proposed.
The budget report for fiscal year 2012 was reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto
Downtown Business and Professional Association at its board meeting on April 5th,
2011.
April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1558)
Resource Impact
Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not directly impact City revenue. BID
assessments are restricted for use exclusively by the BID. It is anticipated that a
healthy BID will encourage vitality in the retail community and consequently result in
additional sales tax revenue for the City. Some staff effort is expended annually to
administer the collection of the BID.
Staff will continue to monitor staff administrative time devoted to the collection of BID
assessments to assure that City costs do not exceed estimates for these services. The
cost and collection of BID assessments past 60 days is borne by the BID.
The Attorney's Office will continue to provide legal oversight to the BID during the
annual reauthorization process. Administrative Services staff provides assistance in the
collection of BID assessments. The Economic Development Manager will continue to
provide oversight to the BID and will prepare the annual reauthorization.
Environmental Review
This action by the City Council does not meet the definition of a project under Section
21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore no environmental
assessment is necessary.
Attachments:
•Attachment 1: Annual Report -- FYE#1D7DF1 (DOC)
•Attachment 2: BID Map (PDF)
•Attachment 3: BID Resolution_FY2012 (PDF)
Prepared By: Thomas Fehrenbach, Econ Dev Mgr
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
Introduction
This report from the Advisory Board of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association
(“PAd”) was prepared for City Council to review for the annual reauthorization of the Downtown Palo
Alto Business Improvement District (“BID”) pursuant to Section 36533 of the Parking and Business
Improvement Law of 1989 (Section 36500 and following of the California Streets and Highways code)
(the “Law”). This report is for the proposed fiscal year for the BID commencing July 1, 2011 and ending
June 30, 2012. (“Fiscal Year 2011-12”).
As required by the Law, this report contains the following information:
I. Any proposed changes in BID boundaries and benefit zones within the BID;
II. The improvements and activities to be provided for Fiscal Year 2011-12;
III. An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for Fiscal Year 2011-
12;
IV. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business
owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for
Fiscal Year 2011-12.
V. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
VI. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied
pursuant to the Law.
Submitted by Anne E. Senti-Willis, Chair, and Russell S. Cohen, Executive Director on behalf of the
Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association
(“PAd”).
The Advisory Board approved this report on April 5, 2011.
Received on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto on April 5, 2011.
2
Section I: BID boundaries and Benefit Zones
There have been no changes in the BID boundaries or benefit zones within the BID and no changes are
proposed. The current boundaries are depicted on the map below. The area of the BID is referred to as
“Downtown”
3
Section II: Improvements and Planned Activities for 2011-12
Programs, Events and Activities:
A more attractive Downtown:
•A robust cleaning schedule along with improved cleaning equipment including a higher pressure;
hot water device to allow for gum removal is being explored through a partnership with the City
of Palo Alto and its vendors.
•An active lamppost banner schedule is in place for both spring and summer and is in
development for fall and winter.
•Lighting and landscaping improvements are in development for Cogswell Park.
•Rules of engagement have been developed for Lytton Plaza and signs have been posted in the
Plaza with instruction on how to obtain event permits and pertinent contact information.
•Work continues with the Palo Alto Police Department to address aggressive panhandling and
loitering conflicts.
•Work continues with the Downtown Streets Team, North County Alternative Services,
InnVision, Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto Public Works Facilities and
Operations Divisions to address both area cleanliness and area’s complex transient population
issues, with special emphasis on Downtown public parking garages and alleyways.
•Exploring landscaping enhancements with Palo Alto Garden Club and City of Palo Alto Parks
Department.
•Ensure that twinkle lights on Downtown street trees are well maintained and coordinated with
other twinkle lights in or near Downtown.
•Work with the City of Palo Alto Economic Development Manager to develop and implement
restaurant outdoor seating guidelines and process.
A more informed Downtown:
•Work is underway to create a Downtown Ambassador program. Currently the Downtown
Streets Team (DST) administers a tiered system employing participants to clean Downtown
streets and alleyways in exchange for food and housing vouchers. Participants are rewarded and
promoted through tiers based on performance. The introduction of a new tier, “Downtown
Ambassador,” will become the ultimate reward. These “Ambassadors” will be neatly uniformed
and well educated about Downtown events and businesses. They will function as Downtown
concierges for visitors and patrons of Downtown Palo Alto. Funding will come from multiple
private/public partnerships.
•Revitalization of the block captain program is under discussion.
4
•Board member recruitment/development is underway with special attention given to diversity.
Desired diversity would include a variety of business types represented on the board, including
but not limited to Financial, Technology, Retail, Medical, Restaurant, Real Estate, and
Hospitality as well as at least one representative from more distant points within the district.
A more connected Downtown:
Web presence:
•Re-engineer website to communicate with district members.
•B2B focused. This refocus will allow members to build relationships amongst fellow members of
the district, be better informed about events, issues and programs that affect their businesses
directly.
•Give business of all kinds a better connection to PAd for specific advocacy needs.
•Web site will function as a portal for archival information—minutes, agendas and a members’
only contact list.
•Social media may be employed to provide a more immediate outreach opportunity to members
and the public.
•A comprehensive email database is being developed in order to design an effective electronic
communication strategy.
Surveys
•Both electronic and on the street, personal outreach and surveys are ongoing in order to
determine what successes can be capitalized upon and what concerns need to be addressed
regarding doing business in Downtown Palo Alto.
Partnerships
•Building relationships with Stanford Dean of Student Activities, Athletic Events Marketing
Director, Office of Government and Community Relations and University Real Estate Office to
enhance connectivity and encourage Stanford visitors and community members to come
downtown.
•Other partnership discussions underway include, Palo Alto Community Fund, Palo Alto Institute,
Palo Alto Art Center, Kiwanis, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and more.
Outreach
•Through vigorous outreach, the PAd member data base has been updated and made more
accurate resulting in approximately 160 new member listings representing approximately
$20,000 in additional assessments.
•Ongoing outreach to members regarding issues that might affect the success of their day-to-day
activities, (i.e. special events, street closures, temporary sidewalk obstructions, etc.) Note: SF
5
Giants Trophy appearance downtown and Parade of Champions event are examples of this face-
to-face, personal outreach effort.
A more efficient Downtown:
•The appointment of Steve Banks as a single point of contact within the City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department for Downtown infrastructure issues has been made.
•A series of Roundtable Forums at the Garden Court Hotel including the April 21st forum
entitled, “In search of the Perfect Public Parking Program” featuring experts in parking strategy
and technology including, Tilly Chang and Jeff Koehler from the San Francisco Transportation
Authority, Dan Zack from the City of Redwood City and Jaime Rodriguez from the City of Palo
Alto help educate PAd members about this important topic.
•Other roundtable forums are being planned with topics of interest for PAd members.
•Support efforts to modernize the lamppost banner and sign code/ordinance.
•Continued improvement of way-finding signage including but not limited to public parking way-
finding.
•Supporting the ongoing efforts to streamline the permitting process through the City of Palo Alto
Development Center.
•PAd now administers and facilitates the former Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Parking
Committee as much of the work plan discussed by this committee is downtown-centric.
A more active Downtown:
•Brown Bag Lunchtime Concert series in addition to Friday Night Jam Sessions is being explored
for Lytton Plaza as well as other Downtown locations.
•The revitalization and future of the Lytton Plaza, Wednesday afternoon “Farm Shop” concept is
under discussion.
•An annual Earth Day celebration called “The Downtown Palo Alto Clean Green Street Scene”
will debut on Friday, April 22 in Lytton Plaza featuring poetry slam, recycled fashion show,
merchant giveaways and more. Partners include the City of Palo Alto, Cit of Palo Alto Utilities,
Acterra, Canopy, the Palo Alto Elementary and High School Districts and more.
•Support, promote and expand World Music Day.
•Support and promote The Palo Alto Gran Fondo Bicycle Ride and Taste of Palo Alto on
September 17, 2011.
6
•Support the efforts of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau and ongoing
Stanford events and opportunities to drive more visitors to Downtown Palo Alto from the
Stanford campus.
•Help promote United Nations Association Film Festival, Stanford Jazz Summers, Palo Alto
Institute Film Festival and TheaterWorks programs.
•Transition oversight and promotion of a vibrant and well-used Lytton Plaza from the Friends of
Lytton Plaza
7
Section III: Budget for 2011-12
The total funds available for activities for this fiscal year are estimated to be $29,715. The budget for
providing the activities is set forth as follows:
BID 2011/12 Budget
INCOME Total
Non-Assessment
Sources
Assessments $145,000
Allowance for Uncollectible Assessments ($23,000)
Other Revenue $17,715 $17,175
09-10 Surplus Carryover $20,000
TOTAL INCOME $159,715 $17,715
EXPENSES
Operating Expenses
Staff Salaries
Executive Director Salary $60,000
Payroll taxes and expense $6,000
Office Supplies & Expenses $1,500
Internet/Website Maintenance $6,000
Telephone $900
Rent $3,120
Reauthorization Advertising $2,500
Audit-Tax Returns $4,000
Legal $1,000 $1,000
Insurance - Liability $1,800
Workman's Comp $1,000
Nominating $1,500
Contingencies $13,500
Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $102,320 $1,000
Programs, Marketing and Events
Permit Fees $1,000
Banners $4,000 $2,000
Breakfast Roundtables $11,475 $8,175
Events $6,000 $6,000
Member Outreach & Communication $3,000
Downtown Streets Team $5,000
District Improvement $26,420
Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $56,895 $16,715
TOTAL EXPENSES $159,715 $17,715
8
Section IV: Method and Basis of Levying the Assessment
Cost Benefit Analysis / Bid Assessments
The method and basis of levying the assessment is provided in sufficient detail to allow each business
owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year
2011-12 and is not changed from the FY 2010-11 assessment.
There have been no changes made to the Cost-Benefit Analysis or to the BID Assessments since they
were approved by City Council on February 2, 2004.
The method of calculation used to determine the cost and benefit to each business located in the BID is
described below. The BID assessments are based on three criteria: the type of business, the location of
the business and the size of the business.
It has been consistently demonstrated that the typical BID program places a higher priority on activities
such as commercial marketing. As a result, the retail and restaurant establishments in the BID are
assessed more than service and professional businesses in the district.
While service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit
more than professional businesses such as medical, dental, architectural, consultant and legal offices
with their minimal advertising and promotion needs.
For these reasons, various business types are assessed according to the benefit that they receive from the
BID, as follows:
Retail and Restaurant 100% of base amount
Service 75% of base amount
Professional 50% of base amount
Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of
location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms.
The location of a business also determines the degree of benefit that accrues to that business. Centrally
located businesses tend to benefit more, as do businesses located on the ground floor.
For this reason, A and B benefit zones have been identified for the BID.
In Palo Alto, Zone A benefit businesses are assessed 100% of the base benefit assessment while Zone B
businesses are assessed 75%.
A third criterion is used in the BID to determine benefit. This criterion, the size of the business, takes
into consideration the number of full time employees employed by the business. Please refer to
Attachment 1 for a more complete understanding of the application of these three variables to establish
BID benefit.
Attachment 2 is the BID assessment for each business located within the BID boundaries. Applying the
criteria identified in Attachment 1, a summary of the assessment that applies to each business by size,
type and location is outlined. In addition to the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the assessments include the
following criteria:
9
An exemption for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or fewer full time
equivalent (“FTE”), including the business owner. This covers employees who work less than 10
hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week; an FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually)
An assessment specifically for “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the
professional business category of the BID (An FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually)
The tiering of other professional businesses by size based (according to benefit) on the “single
person business” criteria
This outline provides information by which a business can determine its annual assessment based on
objective criteria.
Except where otherwise defined, all terms shall have the meanings identified below:
Definitions of Business Types in the Downtown Business Improvement District
Retailers and Restaurants:Businesses that buy or resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores,
office supplies as well as businesses that sell prepared food and drink.
Service Businesses:Businesses that sell services such as beauty or barber shops, repair shops, most
automotive businesses, dry cleaners, art and dance studios, printing firms, film processing companies,
travel agencies, entertainment businesses such as theatres, etc.
Hotel and Lodging: These include businesses that have as their main business the lodging of customers.
This is restricted to residential businesses that provide lodging services to customers for less than 30
days.
Professional Businesses:Businesses that require advanced and/or specialized licenses or academic
degrees such as architects, engineers, attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, accountants,
optometrists, realtors, insurance brokers, venture capital firms, consultants, advertising and marketing
professionals and mortgage brokers and similar professions.
Financial Institutions:Includes banking, savings and loan institutions and credit unions.
Additional clarification on business definitions will be defined according to Section 18.04.030
(Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The Advisory Board recommends that the following businesses be exempt from the BID assessment:
New businesses established in the BID area following the annual assessment for the year
in which they locate in the BID area
Non-profit organizations
Newspapers
“Single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the
business owner
The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the
amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to
businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee.
10
Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit
Based on the revenue balance on 02/28/11 of $71,430, the PAd expects a surplus carryover of $20,000.
Expected expenses for the remainder of FY 10-11 are as follows:
Current Revenue Balance $71,430
Expected expenses for remaining FYE6/30/2011
Staff Salaries $25,000
Elections & Annual Report $3,500
Office & Operating Expenses $10,000
Outside Audit $4,000
Reauthorization Advertising $2,500
Downtown Streets Team $5,000
Rent $1,300
Total Expected Expense $51,300
Expected Carryover $20,000
Section VI: Non-assessment Income
It is estimated that $ 17,715.00 will be raised in fundraising, and sponsor support. Additionally,
anticipate in kind contribution towards expenses for Fiscal Year 2010-11.
Projected Income for Fiscal Year 2011-12
Roundtable Breakfasts (donation) $8,175
Legal (donation) $1,000
Banners $2,000
Events $6,000
Total $17,175
11
Section VII: PAd Board of Directors by Business Type
Retailers and Restaurants
Robert Beschiem,Tamarine Restaurant
Claudia Cornejo, Caffè del Doge
Whitney Denson, Five Ten Gifts
Georgie Gleim,Gleim the Jeweler
Jeff Selzer, Palo Alto Bicycles
Abraham Khalil, A.K Insurance Services, KanZeman, Mediterranean Wraps
Hotel and Lodging
Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel
Service Businesses
Stacey Yates,SkinSpirit
Financial Institutions
Deborah Pappas, Borel Private Bank & Trust Company
Professional Organizations
Anne E. Senti-Willis, Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean
LIAISONS
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Paula Sandas,President & CEO
Downtown Streets Team
Eileen Richardson, Executive Director
City Of Palo Alto
Greg Scharff,Palo Alto City Council
Thomas Fehrenbach, Manager of Economic Development
1
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1
A General Statement Regarding Cost-Benefit Analysis For
BID Businesses Using The Traditional Three Criteria Formula
Criteria 1) Type of Business:
Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Type Of Business:
In a review of 200 California Business Improvement Districts, it is consistently demonstrated that the
typical BID Program places a higher priority on Commercial Marketing Programs than on Civic
Beautification and Commercial Recruitment Programs. With that trend in mind, retail and restaurant
businesses, with their emphasis on, and need for, commercial marketing, are traditionally assessed more
than less marketing-sensitive service-oriented or professional-oriented businesses.
However, while service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they
benefit more, (from commercial marketing programs), than professional businesses such as medical,
dental and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs.
Therefore, set forth below, is an example of how various business types might be considered regarding
the computation of the annual benefit assessment.
• Retail and Restaurant: 100% of base amount
• Service: 75% of base amount
• Professional: 50% of base amount
Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of
location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. Lodging businesses are
assessed based on the total number of rooms because it is a more equitable manner of determining size.
Many lodging businesses have many part time employees, but revenues are based on the room
occupancies of the hotel, not the goods sold or serviced provided by employees.
Criteria 2) Location of Business:
Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Location of Business:
It has also been consistently demonstrated that the more centrally located businesses tend to benefit from
BID activities and services to a greater degree than businesses located toward the periphery of the
proposed BID boundaries. Events and activities tend to originate in the central core of the Downtown
area and spread benefit to the outer areas with diminishing energy and impact, much like the ripple
effect of a stone tossed into a body of calm water.
Furthermore, ground floor businesses tend to benefit to a greater degree than businesses located in upper
floors. Therefore, in some cases, a new BID's annual benefit assessment formula also takes these street
level criteria into account.
As mentioned above, special events, fairs, festivals and other activities tend to take place within, or
along, the Main Street core rather than in the areas at the periphery of the Downtown core. Additionally,
BID-sponsored seasonal decorations, public art projects, street banners and street furniture tend to be
located within the immediate core area.
2
Attachment 1
Therefore, businesses located within the most central area of the proposed BID are considered to be
within "Zone A" which should be considered the primary benefit zone. There is typically a "secondary
zone" or "Zone B" within most proposed BID areas. This area receives less benefit than Zone A and
should be assessed accordingly.
An example of how different zones might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit
assessment is as follows.
• Zone A: 100% of base benefit assessment
• Zone B: 75% of base benefit assessment
In the case of Downtown Palo Alto, it is recommended that all Zone A upper floor businesses, as well as
any other businesses located at the periphery of the proposed BID, be considered as Zone B businesses.
Please refer to the map in Attachment I.
Criteria 3) Size of Business:
Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Size of Business:
In approximately 50% of newly established BIDs, a third assessment criterion is used. This criterion
involves the size of each individual business that is based upon the businesses’ total number of full-time
employees. Full-time employees are those working a total of 2,000 hours per year. Part-time employees
are grouped into full-time job positions, i.e., two half-time employees total one full-time. Fractions are
rounded down to the nearest whole number with no less than one person as a minimum for business.
An example of how various business sizes might be treated regarding the computation of the annual
benefit assessment is as follows:
Retail/Restaurants Service Businesses
Small 50% of base amount Under 6 FTE* Under 4 FTE
Medium 75% of base amount 6 to under 11 FTE 4 to under 7 FTE
Large 100% of base amount 11 or more FTE 7 or more FTE
* FTE = full time employees
Additionally, an exemption was established for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or
less FTE, including the business owner. This covers employees who work less 10 hours a week (based
on a 40 hour work week)
Since “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of
the BID benefit the very least from the assessment, their assessments have been tiered by size based
(according to benefit) on the new “single person business” criteria.
1
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District
Annual BID Assessments
ZONE A ZONE B
(75% of Zone A
amount)
Restaurants & Retailers
Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170
6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260
11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340
Service Businesses
Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130
4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200
Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260
Professional Businesses
25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt
26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50
2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90
5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130
10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170
Lodging Businesses
Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $2258 $170
21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260
41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340
Financial Institutions $500 $500
Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of
employees either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE
equals approximately 2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms
available and financial institutions will be charged a flat fee.
Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same as similar
street-level businesses located within Zone B.
Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment will be
$50.00.
Not Yet Approved
1
110421 jb 0130709
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming the
Report of the Advisory Board and Levying an Assessment for
Fiscal Year 2012 on the Downtown Palo Alto
Business Improvement District
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DOES HEREBY FIND,
DECLARE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989,
California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq. (the “Law”), authorizes the City
Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement
area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819
establishing the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the “District”) in the City
of Palo Alto.
SECTION 3. The boundaries of the District are within the City limits of the City
of Palo Alto (the “City”) and encompass the greater downtown area of the City, generally
extending from El Camino Real to the West, Webster Street to the East, Lytton Avenue to the
North and Addison Avenue to the South (east of Emerson Street, the boundaries extend only to
Forest Avenue to the South). Reference is hereby made to the map of the District attached hereto
as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference for a complete description of the boundaries
of the District.
SECTION 4. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of
Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the
“Advisory Board”).
SECTION 5. In accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the Advisory Board
prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report entitled “Downtown Palo Alto Business
Improvement District, 2011-12 Annual Report” (the “Report”), and, by previous resolution, the
City Council preliminarily approved such report as filed.
SECTION 6. The City Council has adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution
No. 9159 declaring its intention to levy and collect an assessment for fiscal year 2012 against
businesses in the District.
SECTION 7. Following notice duly given pursuant to law, the City Council has
held a full and fair public hearing regarding the levy and collection of an assessment within the
District for fiscal year 2012. All interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and to
be heard regarding protests and objections to the levy and collection of the assessment for fiscal
year 2012. The City Council finds that there was no majority protest within the meaning of the
Not Yet Approved
2
110421 jb 0130709
Law. All protests and objections to the levy and collection of the assessment and any and all
other protests and objections are hereby overruled by the City Council.
SECTION 8. Based upon its review of the Report, a copy of which has been
presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, and other reports and
information, the City Council hereby finds and determines that (i) the businesses in the District
will be benefited by the expenditure of funds raised by the assessment, (ii) the District includes
all of the businesses so benefited; and (iii) the net amount of the assessment levied within the
District for the 2012 fiscal year in accordance with the Report is apportioned by a formula and
method which fairly distributes the net amount in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by each such business.
SECTION 9. The City Council hereby confirms the Report as originally filed by
the Advisory Board.
SECTION 10. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment
for the fiscal year 2012 (commencing July 1, 2011, and ending June 30, 2012). The assessment
formula, including the method and basis of levying the assessment, is set forth in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. New businesses established in the District
after the beginning of any fiscal year shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for that
fiscal year. In addition, nonprofit organizations, newspapers, and professional “single-person
businesses”, defined as those businesses which have 25% of less full time equivalent employees,
including the business owner, shall be exempt from the assessment.
SECTION 11. The City Council hereby declares that the proposed uses of the
revenues derived from the assessments levied against businesses in the District are for the
following facilities and activities: The types of improvements to be funded by the levy of an
assessment against businesses within the District are the acquisition, construction, installation or
maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more. The
types of activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the
District are the promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the area and which take
place on or in public places within the District; the furnishing of music in any public place in the
District; and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the District.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Not Yet Approved
3
110421 jb 0130709
SECTION 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not
meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of 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:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Not Yet Approved
4
110421 jb 0130709
Exhibit “A”
Not Yet Approved
5
110421 jb 0130709
Exhibit “B”
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District
Annual BID Assessments
ZONE A
ZONE B
(75% of Zone A
amount)
Restaurants & Retailers
Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170
6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260
11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340
Service Businesses
Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130
4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200
Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260
Professional Businesses
25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt
26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50
2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90
5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130
10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170
Lodging Businesses
Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $2258 $170
21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260
41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340
Financial Institutions $500 $500
Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of employees
either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE equals approximately
2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms available and financial institutions will
be charged a flat fee.
Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same
as similar street-level businesses located within Zone B.
Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment
will be $50.00.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1561)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1561)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: 525 San Antonio-zone change & comp plan amend
Title: Public Hearing: Request by SummerHill Homes on Behalf of A&D Protocol
Transportations Inc. for a Zone change from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 (Low Density
Multiple-Family/Village Residential), a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
assign the Village Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site currently
designated Single-Family Residential and in use as a preschool/daycare center at
525 San Antonio Road; and Approval of a Record of Land Use Action.
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
As set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council deny the applicant’s
request for a Comprehensive Plan re-designation to Village Residential land use and RM-15
(Multi-Family/Village Residential) zoning of the 2.65 acre site currently designated Single-Family
Residential and zoned R-1 8000 (Single Family Residential with 8,000 square foot (s.f.) minimum
lot size).
Executive Summary
This report conveys to the City Council the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) and staff to deny the application submitted by SummerHill homes on
October 25, 2010 to:1) amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of the
entire site from Single Family Residential to Village Residential to allow for up to 20 housing
units per acre and (2) rezone the site from R-1 (8,000) to RM-15 (Multiple Family/Village
Residential) for the eventual development as a Village Residential community featuring small
lots with 26 detached homes distributed throughout the site. The site is currently in use as a
private day care center, which is scheduled to close in June 2011. The Comprehensive Plan and
zone changes necessary to accommodate the originally planned 26-unit project (as well as the
later downscaled 23-lot alternative concept for development) was recommended for denial by
the PTC by a vote of 6-1 on March 23, 2011. The P&TC’s recommendation was based upon
existing Comprehensive Plan polices and prior Council direction on May 12, 2010 regarding
prohibiting designating R-1 zoned sites for increased housing density and the preference for
locating housing density increases within one-half mile of transit stations or on sites that are
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1561)
well served by transit. While bus service is provided within one-quarter mile of the project site,
the San Antonio CalTrain station in Mountain View is more than one half mile from the project
site and is not afforded frequent train service. The recommendation for denial on this project
reflects an acknowledgement of that Council direction. Though an initial study was prepared
and is attached to this report, a denial is considered statutorily exempt from analysis and
determination of environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The applicant’s attorney has submitted a summary of their concerns regarding staff’s
position and interpretation of Council’s May 12, 2010 direction, reflected in a letter prepared
by their attorney and attached to this report (Attachment L). This is also briefly addressed in the
Discussion section of this report.
Background
The project site is located at 525 San Antonio Avenue, a 2.65 acre site consisting of two parcels
(147-08-047 & 1487-08-046) zoned R-1 (8000) (Single Family Residential) and regulated by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.12, requiring a minimum residential lot size of
8,000 square feet. The Peninsula Day Care Center, a privately operated non-profit child care
center and preschool on the site, will close in June after approximately 37 years of operation, as
the remaining founder is retiring and selling the property. The R-1 zone allows for the daycare
use via approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The daycare center, established prior to the
CUP requirement, is operated in seven structures providing over 18,700 s.f. of floor area
supported by a parking facility, play areas and minimal landscaping.
A site location map is provided as Attachment B. The site is bounded by San Antonio Avenue ,
Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) Greendell campus (zoned Public Facilities), RM-15
zoned parcels and R-1 (8,000) zoned parcels in the Greendell single family residential
neighborhood. Access to the site is from the San Antonio Avenue frontage road. Five single-
family, single-story residences abut the site on the west on R-1 (8000) zoned parcels ranging
from 8,030 s.f. to 10,313 s.f. in area and fronting Ferne Avenue. The two adjacent multi-family
zoned (RM-15) properties are approximately 15,700 s.f. and 16,600 s.f. in site area, each with
two housing units on the cul-de-sac Byron Street, which supports two additional, developed
RM-15 zoned properties. A private educational facility (Gideon Hausner Day School) and an
affordable housing community (Palo Alto Gardens Planned Community) are located across San
Antonio. The 48-unit Rosewalk residential condominiums and the site of the approved Hewlett
Packard (Mayfield) residential development are also across San Antonio closer to Alma Street.
An application for tentative subdivision of the site into 10 parcels for single family residential
development was approved by Council in 2002 but has since expired. At that time, the P&TC
had voted 5-2 to recommend the map, with discussion centered on two issues: (1) the loss of a
child care facility contrary to Comprehensive Plan Policy C-11, and (2) the potential for the site
to yield additional housing units if developed at a multiple-family residential density.
Discussion
The applicant proposes to (1) amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1561)
the entire site from Single Family Residential to Village Residential to allow for up to 20 housing
units per acre and (2) rezone the site from R-1 (8,000) to RM-15 (Multiple Family/Village
Residential) for eventual development as a Village Residential community featuring small lots
with 26 detached homes distributed throughout the site. The project application was
submitted in October 2010. A second, revised conceptual site plan for 23 detached homes and
dual zoning (R-1(6000) and RM-15) was more recently provided for staff and P&TC
consideration, following neighborhood meetings, and can be found linked with the March 23,
2011 P&TC report on the City’s website.
Analyses of both concepts were provided in the P&TC staff report (Attachment E), which, along
with the draft Record of Land Use Action, supported denial of the application. Attachment F is
a set of Commissioner questions and staff responses regarding the project.
Zoning
The development concept is not an allowed use per the City’s current zoning code (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.12) and Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The 26 single
family residences would exceed the allowable density under the R-1 (8,000) standards and the
lot sizes would be 3,500 s.f. to 4,000 s.f. smaller than the minimum lot size required for R-1
(8000)parcels, hence the request for rezoning. A density of 26 residences (or 23 residences)
would also exceed the Comprehensive Plan’s maximum density of one to seven units per acre
for single family residential uses, thus the Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested. The
2.65 acre site could accommodate a maximum of 12 single family residences under the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation and the R-1(8000) zoning and deduction of roadway area. The
original 26 home proposal would therefore more than double the allowable population density
on the site.
Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning and Transportation Commission considered the proposed project at a public
hearing on March 23, 2011 (Staff Report and minutes included as Attachment E). There were 14
public speakers; many were from the nearby neighborhoods and were concerned about the
potential strain on resources and the unpredictability of ‘up-zoning’, and some noted concerns
about the access and cumulative environmental impacts. The issues discussed by the P&TC
members included the Council’s direction in May 2010 regarding precluding density increases
on R-1 zoned sites, the site’s location beyond ½ mile from the Mountain View CalTrain station
and the lack of frequent commuter service, a concern over the baseline for traffic analysis being
the existing daycare facility versus the underlying R-1 zoning, and concerns about neighborhood
walkability.
Due in large part to staff’s representation of the City Council direction on May 12, 2010
regarding preservation of R-1 parcels (Attachment K), the P&TC supported staff’s
recommendation to deny the project by a vote of 6-1. The dissenting vote by Commissioner
Martinez was to express that R-1 zoning does not seem appropriate for the entire site.
Commissioner Martinez encouraged the applicant to move forward with the revised proposal,
his primary reason being that Council should evaluate the impact of its prior direction relative
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1561)
to increased density on this R-1 site. He indicated that the City wants housing near existing
commercial, bus lines and community facilities such as parks and schools. He also stated that
the concept plan provided a good transition between R-1 and multi-family uses. Commissioner
Martinez also had concerns with the site being developed under its current R-1(8000) zoning
that would allow for larger, more energy inefficient homes which is contrary to the direction
future development should be taking.
Applicant’s Attorney’s Letter
The applicant’s attorney’s letter (Attachment M) expresses concern about potential interest in
the site by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) as forming the basis for the applicant’s
perceived staff shift in policy direction on this project. A letter from the PAUSD (Attachment K)
was previously provided to City staff, reflecting the District’s lack of interest in pursuing
purchase of this parcel, and staff has not adjusted its recommendation over time based upon
PAUSD interest or lack of interest in the parcel. Instead Staff’s recommendation for denial is
based on the current Comprehensive Plan policies to preserve the character of existing
residential neighborhoods and to focus upzoning in areas well served by transit as well as the
Council’s May 2010 housing direction not to upzone R-1 neighborhoods that are not well served
by transit. Staff also noted that a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment such as this is
entirely discretionary and the City is under no obligation to approve the requests (unlike
arguments that might be made in a quasi-judicial setting).
Alternative
As noted in the Discussion section of this report, the applicant provided staff with a revised
concept plan for 23 detached homes for P&TC review. The revised concept reflects six single
story homes abutting the five single story Greendell homes along the western property line,
with a transition to larger two story homes closer to the neighboring RM-15 zoned properties
along Byron Street. In addition to the reduction in the number of homes and a commitment to
single story homes at the R-1 edge, the revised concept plan also indicates full driveway aprons
for each home, allowing for additional off-street parking. The 23-lot alternative concept initially
accompanied an alternative rezone concept for R-1(6000) zoning for six homes abutting the R-
1(8000), which would have not required a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the portion of
the site abutting the R-1(8000). This concept was shared with the P&TC; however, the six home
sites did not meet the 6,000 s.f. minimum lot size criteria, given the roadway area deduction, so
the alternative zoning concept was not pursued.
If the Council is supportive of the RM-15 rezoning and Village Residential Comprhensive Plan
Amendment to support the revised concept plan for 23 homes instead of the original 26 home
proposal, then direction to P&TC and staff should be provided to prepare a draft Ordinance for
the rezoning, a draft Resolution for re-designation of the land use, and a recommendation on
adoption of the CEQA documentation.
Resource Impact
Any development of the property would be subject to citywide traffic impact fees and the San
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1561)
Antonio/West Bayshore traffic impact fee. Fees to address impacts on parks, community
centers and libraries would also be required. The City’s park-in-lieu fee and facilities fee is
intended to offset impacts on park facilities, community centers and libraries from
development projects. Subdivision projects are subject to payment of parkland dedication fees.
If the property were “upzoned” the pending reassessment of the property value would result in
a substantial increase in property taxes. If Council directs staff to return with documents for
further consideration and approval of this application, additional information about resource
impacts would be provided.
Policy Implications
The proposed project is not supportable since it is not consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site or with Comprehensive Plan policies for locating
increased housing density near transit, and the Council has given specific policy direction to
avoid rezoning R-1 properties to higher densities. Though bus service is provided, the closest
train station to the site is located more than ½ mile away from the subject property, in
Mountain View, and that station is not afforded frequent train service.
Environmental Review
This project, if considered approvable, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirements. Staff completed a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment J) for the re-designation, rezoning and 26-home concept plan for presentation to
the P&TC. The document was posted on the City’s website with the P&TC staff report and was
advertised and made available for public review between January 28, 2011 and February 17,
2011; no written public comments were received on the document. CEQA Guidelines Article 18,
Section 15270 Statutory Exemptions, notes that CEQA does not apply to a project a public
agency rejects or disapproves; therefore, the recommended denial does not carry any
requirement for a final determination of potential impacts in accordance with CEQA.
COURTESY COPIES
Katia Kamangar, Summerhill Homes
Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Homeowners’ Association
Srini Sankaran, Greendell Homeowners’ Association
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action for Denial (DOC)
·Attachment B: Site Location Map (existing zoning)(PDF)
·Attachment C: Comp. Plan Land Use & Circulation Map (Excerpt)(PDF)
·Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (PDF)
·Attachment E: P&TC Staff Report & MInutes, 3/23/11 (PDF)
·Attachment F: Commissioner Questions & Responses (PDF)
·Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
·Attachment H: 26-Home Site Plan (PDF)
May 02, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1561)
·Attachment I: 23-Home Concept (PDF)
·Attachment J: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)
·Attachment K: Council Minutes of May 12, 2010 on Housing Element Direction (PDF)
·Attachment L: Letter from PAUSD, 1/12/2011 (PDF)
·Attachment M: Applicant's Attorney Letter, 4/13/11 (PDF)
·Attachment N: Correspondence (PDF)
Prepared By:Jason Nortz, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
APPROVAL NO. 2011-2
DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO DENIAL OF 525 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE APPLICATION:
REQUEST FOR REZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (LAND USE MAP RE-DESIGNATION)
10PLN-00364 SUMMERHILL HOMES ON BEHALF OF A&D PROTOCOL
TRANSPORTATIONS, INC.
On [Date], the Council denied a request for: (1) a re-
designation from Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation to Village Residential Land Use Designation, and
(2) a rezoning from R-1 8000 (Single Family Residential, 8,000 s.f.
minimum lot size) to RM-15 zone, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.The City Council finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A.On October 25, 2010, SummerHill Homes, “Applicant”
submitted an application and fees to request a Zone Change and a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the intent for eventual
development of a village residential, 26 unit single family
residential Subdivision (“The Project”).
B.On March 2, 2011, the Applicant submitted a revised
concept plan, rezoning and land use re-classification proposal for
23 homes for staff’s and Planning and Transportation Commission
(“Commission”)’s consideration.
C.Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the project on March 23, 2011,
and concurred with staff’s recommendation for denial based upon the
findings herein.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. An Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and notice of intent were
prepared and circulated for a 20-day public comment period from
January 28, 2011 through February 17, 2011. The study analyzed the
original proposal for rezoning the entire site to RM-15 and
reclassification of the entire site to Village Residential, with a
development concept for 26 home sites.
SECTION 3.Finding for Denial of Rezone. Pursuant to
PAMC Chapter 18.80, the following Commission-recommended denial
findings are hereby affirmed by the City Council to deny the
requested zone change:
2
The requested change of district boundaries (rezoning) would not be
in accord with the purposes of this title (Title 18) and would not
be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The purposes of (Title 18) shall be to promote and protect the
public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and
general welfare, including the following more particularly
specified purposes:
(a) To further, promote, and accomplish the objectives, policies,
and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
(b) To lessen congestion and assure convenience of access; to
secure safety from fire, flood, and other dangers; to provide for
adequate public health, sanitation, and general welfare; to
provide for adequate light, air, sunlight, and environmental
amenities; to promote and encourage conservation of scarce
resources; to prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of population, to facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community; to attain a
desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities;
and to expedite the provision of adequate and essential public
services to the community.
·The existing zoning of the site, single family residential
R-1 (8000), would allow for development of single family
homes on larger lots (8,000 s.f.) and thereby maintain a
balance of density adjacent to a neighborhood having the
same zoning and density. The requested rezoning to RM-15 to
enable a subdivision containing residential lots between
3,000 s.f. and 4,500 s.f. would more than double the density
on a site intended for larger lot single family residential
use.
·The proposal is for an increase in residential density for
‘village residential’ multiple family housing on a site
having a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Single
Family Residential. The proposal is not in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan, since Village Residential housing is not
permitted in single family neighborhoods. Further, Goal L-3
text notes “Eichler homes were oriented towards private
backyards” and encourages “protection of privacy if second
stories are added” and states “in some single-story
neighborhoods, second stories are not desirable.” Policy L-
12 states, “Preserve the character of residential
neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to
be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent
structures.”
3
·Comprehensive Plan Program T-3 states, “locate higher
density development along transit corridors and near multi-
modal transit stations.” The site is beyond ½ mile from
transit station, so is not well served or likely to be well
served by transit; therefore, rezoning a low density parcel
to increase density of housing on the site is contrary to
Council policy for location of more dense residential
development within ½ mile of transit stations well served by
transit.
·Council discussion regarding the Housing Element on June 23,
2010 included reiteration that denser housing should be near
transit stations and direction to not rezone R-1 areas to
higher density housing.
4
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_____________________________________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by _____ titled “______”, consisting of ___
pages, dated _____, (revised ______), and received ______.
2. ...
3. ...
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
March 23, 2011
DRAFT EXCERPT
525 San Antonio Rezoning and Comp. Plan Amendment*: Request initiated by SummerHill
Homes on behalf of A&D Protocol Transportations Inc. for a Zone Change from R-1 (8000) to
RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family/Village Residential) and a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to assign the Village Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site currently
designated Single-Family Residential and in use as a preschool/daycare center. Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Good evening Commissioners. The proposal is to
rezone a 2.6-acre site and assign a Village Residential Land Use Designation to allow
development following the Village Residential development standards. This is the first request
for the Village Residential Land Use Designation. A zoning table was provided as a Report
attachment to allow for comparison among the standards for R-1 (8000), R-1 (6000), RM-
15/Village Residential, and the project. Staff’s slide show includes images from the existing
zoning of the area, which you can see on the screen here. I am going to go ahead and point with
the fancy laser pointer.
This is the site. It is two parcels and is adjacent to the Greendell Elementary School, or former
elementary school. Here is the Greendell tract of many Eichler homes. The Greenmeadow tract
is on this side of the Cubberley campus. The slide show includes the Comprehensive Plan
existing land use designation you will see the red box here. It has the single-family residential in
the yellow land use designation.
Also we have the applicant’s revised proposal, which of late shows an interest in putting this
piece as R-1 (6000) rezoned from R-1 (8000), and this part of the parcel being an RM-15 to
allow for the Village Residential. This is the applicant’s revised 23-lot proposal showing six
homes along the Greendell tract, and the remaining 17 homes in the Village Residential layout.
The single drive, two driveway cuts onto San Antonio. This shows the preliminary map that
would reflect that 23-lot concept. This is the 26-lot concept that they first came in with back in
October.
This is a 2002 subdivision that was approved but has been expired for several years now for ten
lots that originally came in. So I am going to take you back to the original image so you can
have something to look at about the zoning. The applicant will also have a slideshow showing
the project in more detail, and I believe photographs of the site.
Staff has provided written answers to Commissioner questions. The question topics included the
use of LEED for Neighborhood Development Checklist to analyze the project. The Checklist is
not required for this application since it did come in October. However, the applicant has said
that they would prepare one. We have not received a Checklist for LEED-ND to help with the
analysis.
Other questions included land use, school district capacity and interest in the parcel, allowable
density under the site’s existing zoning, restrictions to the concept plan shown if the rezoning is
approved, maximum house size and comparison to the Alma Plaza homes, and whether any
follow up review by the Planning and Transportation Commission would occur if the rezoning is
approved by Council.
Staff did note that the environmental document on the rezoning and the original 26-home
concept would remain valid if the rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan designation, and the 23-
unit concept were approved by Council, as any impacts would be less than the impacts that were
already identified.
As far as the school issue the discussion of the Housing Element and population concerns on
page 7 of the Staff Report includes a sentence that starts with, “Based on the Palo Alto Unified
School district,” and continues from there. An excerpt from the initial study explanation about
public services, which the environmental document did explain Staff’s finding that there would
be no significant demand for school services therefore a less than significant impact was noted in
accordance with CEQA. Attorney Silver has more to say regarding consideration of the project
relative to schools. I want to say there was a letter submitted by owner and Director Williams
will address that.
So Staff’s recommendation is provided in a Draft Record of Land Use Action for denial, and it
was provided for the Planning and Transportation Commission to discuss and perhaps modify as
desired to forward to the City Council. If the Commission believes as Staff does that the request
is not in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning
Commission agrees with the Staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning the written findings
and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission will be forwarded to the
Council within 30 days in accordance with our Municipal Code.
Alternatively, if the Planning and Transportation Commission instead initiates the rezoning and
determines a Village Residential Comprehensive Plan designation can be supported Staff would
then prepare a draft Resolution and Ordinance for the Commission’s review and
recommendation at a future meeting. I will now turn it over to Curtis.
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. Since this project involves a
housing project that is adjacent to a school district and many of the public members have
commented on school impacts I did want to just outline the Commission’s purview in this area.
There is a state law that prevents the City from denying a project based on school impacts. We
have discussed this in the past. I just wanted to remind the Commission of that state law
prohibition. We are required to analyze population increases and school impacts. In the
environmental documentation there is an evaluation of that to this particular project and has not
found an impact on school services nor a population impact to the extent there would have been
an impact. Again, state law proscribes the ability of the City to mitigate those impacts by
imposing school impact fees, and that is really the extent of the City’s ability to mitigate any
identified school impacts.
Now I will turn it over to Curtis.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Thank you.
Commissioners, I just wanted to respond. I know you received a letter from the current owner of
the property and in that letter there is a statement that Staff encouraged the proposed
development that has come before you tonight. I just want to clarify that first of all that is a
pretty significant overstatement I think of the Staff’s actions and positions on this request. I am
not sure it was exactly intended that way in any event, but just to respond to it.
Early last year I think it was we were getting a lot of inquiries about this property. Most of the
potential purchasers were interested in multifamily development that was in the RM-30 and
sometimes even RM-40 density range. We indicated I think uniformly to all of those, and there
might have been a half dozen or so that saw us, that there is no way that we could support
something like that. SummerHill came in and they talked to us about RM-30 zoning and RM-15
zoning. We indicated that RM-15 did have or there were some advantages to looking at a
transition that that would serve as a better transition than an RM-30 or RM-40. We did indicate
to them that even better than that was a Village Residential which is more restrictive, it is 12
units per acre maximum, but that what they would need to do is they would need to show that
they could make that transition from the Eichler homes on the one side to the multifamily on the
other, and that they would need to work with the neighborhood to see what the neighborhood
would feel about it. We did not take a position on the project per se, but we indicated that if they
were looking to change zoning that those were probably some of the issues they needed to
address, and we talked about some other detailed issues.
After that time the Council and Planning and Transportation Commission jointly at one point had
a meeting to talk about housing sites, potential housing opportunity sites where we could
intensify zoning to accommodate more housing. Then the Council ultimately in late June of last
year did set some direction for what we should look at. A couple of the key criteria that they
came up with were number one, new or intensified housing should be located close to transit,
areas that were well-served in fact was the word they used by transit. Secondly, they did not
want us to intensify our existing R-1 zoning sites. I think we probably were a bit delinquent in
getting that word directly to this applicant, but nevertheless they were going through the process
with the neighbors. There were a number of neighborhood concerns raised, some of which I
think they have addressed and some of which they have not at this point. Subsequent to that,
later in the year, we did meet with them and talk to them about the fact that Council had provided
this direction, and because of that and because of the adverse neighbor’s response that it looked
to us likely that we would not support this project.
I also would point out that we did have some discussion about the fact that the school district had
or there had been some word that the school district might be interested in this parcel.
Subsequent to that we determined that that was not something that we could not consider as part
of our deliberations, and the Commission cannot consider it part of theirs. In fact, the school
district told us they didn’t have anything going that way and we should proceed with our process.
So here we are. Ultimately, clearly it is the Commission’s, as we always tell applicants, and
Council’s determination as to whether this is a good fit for this property or not. That is a
summary of the history. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Okay, great, thanks very much for that presentation. At this point we will go to the
applicant. My understanding is they have a presentation. You will have 15 minutes in the
beginning and then after public comment you will have an additional three minutes for any wrap
up or any additional comments you want to make. So when you are ready we are ready.
Just as a reminder to the applicant and also members of the public, as you begin to speak a light
will go on, it will be a green light. When you have one minute of time left that will change to
yellow, and at that point you should be thinking about wrapping up your comments. So with that
welcome. Please state your name for the record and we will get going.
Ms. Katia Kamangar, SummerHill Homes, Applicant: Thank you. Good evening
Commissioners and Chair Tuma. I am a Senior Vice President and Managing Director with
SummerHill homes based here in Palo Alto on California Avenue for the past 35 years.
I would like to start off thanking Staff for all of their efforts on our proposal. Not withstanding
the tremendous respect I do have for your Staff we were disappointed with the recommendation
and have to respectfully disagree with it. We believe that we have a compelling basis for our
request. I plan to show you this evening how our requested actions are consistent with the City’s
goals and guiding documents, how the site given its location and adjacencies, access to retail and
transit, is an appropriate location for the requested density of 23 homes, and to respectfully
request your recommendation of approval on our application.
As you are undoubtedly well aware as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation program
the City of Palo Alto needs to provide its fair share of housing units needed to serve the Bay
Area’s growing population. Not unlike other cities on the peninsula Palo Alto is fairly built out
we all know, which means that planners and developers have to just get that much more creative
in identifying where housing opportunities could lie whether it be from conversion of a
nonresidential use or potentially an intensification of an existing residential zoning designation,
as is the case here before you this evening.
We recognize that Palo Alto is also in the middle of a four-year Comprehensive Plan and
Housing Element Update process and that discussions are underway. My comments here tonight
will be in relation to the existing Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element since those are the
documents that have not been updated yet, until such time that they are I am going to be using
that as my context.
So let’s start in with the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. The key question here is
where do we find sites that have the necessary characteristics to be good housing sites, good
access to multiple forms of transit, services within walking distance, ones that can withstand
intensification in density without placing an undue burden on the existing residents. I am here
this evening because we believe that 525 San Antonio Road has all those characteristics, and in
fact it does support a number of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies you have in place.
While there are others here, a few of the key ones that I wanted to highlight for you from the
Comprehensive Plan specifically. Our approach is directly in line with Policy L-6 and Program
L-4 by providing a gradual density transition. I will illustrate that in greater detail for you later
in my presentation. We utilized the Village Residential as Curtis mentioned, and as it is
referenced in Program L-13 using small single-family homes and that is directly in support of
this policy and program.
Regarding the Housing Element, and I am not going to read these slides. Obviously there is just
too much text here. I will highlight that our proposal furthers Goal H-1 certainly by providing 20
market rate and three below market rate housing units. We are consistent with Program H-1
given that the site is within walking distance of the San Antonio Caltrain station. In fact, this
program in particular really states very clearly to us that increased housing density along San
Antonio is desired. Both Goals H-6 and H-10 also point to increasing densities and smaller units
for families and children. Our use of Village Residential on small lots really supports that goal
by offering a different home type that is currently found in this particular neighborhood. Our
proposal is also in keeping with Program H-36 by setting aside 15 percent of the units as below
market rate.
Now let’s turn to the zoning and the surrounding land uses. Here is a picture of the property.
Most of you are probably quite familiar with it right on San Antonio Road. Here is an aerial
view of the site kind of to illustrate the context here for you. Here is the site and here are the
existing Eichlers that back up to the site as well as the apartments adjacent along El Camino. So
the site is on one of the city’s main arterials, obviously San Antonio. It carries about 20,000
vehicles per day. With respect to the land uses they are varied. On the west you have the
Eichlers under single-family R-1 (8000). On the north you have the school owned property. To
the south and to the east you have RM-15 apartments, townhomes, as well as commercial uses,
and then RM-30 over here.
So on one side you have the R-1 (8000). I have some imagery here from the Eichlers that back
up to the site. Sere is the other side, which is apartments and these are 22 units to the acre. So
clearly we are in between two very different residential density designations. This is what led us
to the proposal that we have before you. Across the street there is also San Antonio Village,
townhomes and office use, and the Rosewalk townhomes across the street as well.
Here I am highlighting some of the surrounding zoning designations again for you to illustrate
the proposed project site here in white. The R-1 (8000) is here, RM-15 in the light green, which
is 15 units to the acre and office uses, and RM-30 over here off to the left. So the purpose of the
Village Residential is to “serve as a transition to moderate density multiple family districts, or
districts with nonresidential uses.” As I showed that is exactly where our site is. It is next to
multifamily on one side, commercial uses, and then lower density residential on the other. Under
the Village Residential the permitted densities range from eight to 12 units to the acre. So our
proposed project is really based on an overall density of 8.6 homes per acre and what I would say
here is that clearly it is not high density residential, as has been mentioned by some. It is in
progression, going from left to right we looked at the density. You have the Eichlers here
approximately four units to the acre, here is our site. The ones that are crosshatched here on the
left illustrate the fact that we have offered to do single story homes there. So that brings the
density of those down to 7.4 units to the acre. The rest of the site being at nine units to the acre,
and again to the east of us is an existing 22 units to the acre. So a progression in densities and
that is in direct response to the comments received from the neighbors, concerns over privacy.
So we feel that this is an appropriate use for Village Residential zoning designation, and it does
achieve the intended Comprehensive Plan objectives of not having broad changes in density
designations, as I earlier alluded to.
So in addition to being in a transitional area, major arterial, the site has great access to various
forms of transit. Although the Staff Report states that it is not considered transit-oriented
development per the pure definition the site is clearly within walking distance of numerous
transit stations. This yellow circle here is a half-mile radius. The site is shown in blue. While
that is half acres that you see there between us and the San Antonio Caltrain station the walking
distance is yes, .58, but I have walked it. It is a nice 15-minute walk. I would argue it is
definitely in the zone and the intent, and very suitable for slightly increased density.
The site also has great access to neighborhood services and retail. A website called Walk Score
(walkscore.com) that rates walkability of different locations. Here what we are seeing is the City
of Palo Alto between these lines here, the blue lines, our site is down here with the little star.
Zero to 100 with anything over 70 is a great walkable neighborhood. The darker green is the
most walkable. That is downtown, University Avenue, California Avenue. What you see here is
ours is also very walkable and that is because right at Charleston and Middlefield you have nice
shopping, grocery stores, and so on and so forth. So here is our score, it is 78, very walkable.
What I would also like to point out is on their exhibits as well it says transit is within .58 miles of
the site. So very, very close proximity.
Regarding neighbor outreach we engaged with the surrounding neighbors in various formats for
the last six months. Back in the fall we reviewed our initial site plan, which had 26 single-family
homes all two story. The main concerns we heard at that point were school capacity, density,
traffic, parking, loss of privacy potentially for the Eichlers, and potentially setting precedent
having two story homes backing up to the Eichlers. So we took this initial input and looked at
ways to address the concerns raised. Over the past few weeks we had additional meetings with
both Greendell and Greenmeadow. Along the way of course we had several other meetings as
well with our neighbors individually.
What we did in response to the neighbor concerns raised is we introduced, as I mentioned earlier,
single story homes all along that R-1 interface with the Eichlers. That significantly I think takes
the temperature down in terms of concerns with privacy, understandably. We reduced the home
count from 26 to 23. We also introduced 20-foot driveway aprons for all the homes. Initially
some of the homes had more of a five-foot type of driveway apron where you can’t park a car,
and neighbors were concerned that there would be spillover parking into their neighborhoods.
So by introducing full driveway aprons we significantly improved the ability to park cars within
the subdivision. I feel that most people felt that these are very welcome changes and well
received.
So our proposal is consistent with the goals and policies. It is very walkable and well served by
transit, addresses a number of neighbor concerns, and the other thing is that the proposal has very
limited potential impacts as confirmed by the City’s environmental analysis. Under the Land
Use category, which is the diagram I have up here, they have identified no potentially significant
impacts in terms of inconsistencies. Under Public Services here highlighted with a little blue
thing around it are school impacts at the project level and cumulatively speaking are not
considered potentially significant. For context, just looking at it with the current zoning allowing
14 units, and using the City’s and the Palo Alto School District’s student generation rates 14
homes would generate 11 school age children. With our proposed project of 23 homes we would
generate 17 school age children. So the difference between the current zoning and our proposal
is six students, which is why the school impact was found to be less than significant by the City’s
environmental analysis as well as the school district, frankly.
Under the Traffic category, I wanted to touch on this as well because it is extremely unique. It is
rare to find residential development proposals that generate no new traffic. The reason for that is
of course is that the site is currently used as childcare center with over 300 children, 50-some
employees on it Monday through Friday on a daily basis. Based on the traffic study that was
done, which I will also state was done during school hours when school was in session, the
actual traffic counts show that with the proposed development it would generate one-tenth, less
than one-tenth of the traffic that is currently being generated by the current use. So I think those
are very compelling factors in that the City’s own documents point to the fact that it is quite a
low impact residential development. We feel that it is appropriate in the context of the
adjacencies and access to retail, access to transit, and we would request your approval this
evening.
I would like to offer for Mr. Herman Shaw to get up and just speak for a few minutes. He is the
property owner. If that would be acceptable and I still have time.
Chair Tuma: There is one minute remaining on your time.
Mr. Herman Shaw, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. Just to clarify the point, I am not
the property owner.
Chair Tuma: Sir, if you could identify yourself for the public record.
Mr. Shaw: My name is Herman Shaw. I live at 2077 Williams Street in Palo Alto. I have been
associated with that particular site well over 45 years, but as far as the childcare operation it is in
its 37th year. I am not the property owner. My wife who passed away recently the property was
designated to her heirs and to her children, although we had worked together for a number of
years. The actually development of the property is not within my purview. I can only say that
we have cooperated with SummerHill in respect to wanting to do exactly what they thought was
best as far as the parents, the children, and the people that were associated with our center were
concerned. When they approached us a year ago indicating that they had an interest in buying he
property, and that the property had basically been sold to them, we began to cooperate with them
with respect to what the future of our center was going to be. Am I done?
Chair Tuma: If you could just go ahead and wrap up your thoughts.
Mr. Shaw: Okay. Anyway, we cooperated with notifying parents a year in advance of closure.
We provided on March 3rd a daycare fair for each parent that wanted to attend. Approximately
83 percent of the parents attended. There were 29 different caregivers there each separated with
their private table, etc. So that all the parents that were involved in our center could have an
option to see what was available in the entire Palo Alto and the surrounding area.
With respect to traffic, Katia touched on that. Currently as of last Monday we had 336 children
onsite and the majority of those children come in single-family cars both to and from our center
in the morning and in the evening. Also, our buses make 28 trips a day from the center to the
various schools going and coming. We do not bus from home to school but we do bus to about
13 different public schools in the area for those children in our school age program.
So just to recap it all, we have served about 12,000 children in our 37 years. It has been out
passion to provide the best service possible. We support this project because we feel that it is
time to move to other areas and do other things that we might want to do in our shall we say
twilight years of life. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Before we go to the public I want to welcome Commissioner Keller
who joined us at approximately 6:30. Before we go any further I believe he has a disclosure that
he would like to make having joined us.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair. I had a conversation about a week and a half ago or so
with Mr. Baer talking about his work with the developer here. He said that it was currently a
daycare center and he said it was about three acres and that there was an option price of $9.0
million on the property. He and/or the people who were working with the developer met with
the business manager of the school district and there was a discussion about the nature of the
amount of land for a new school. He mentioned, Robert Fried, President of SummerHill Homes.
He talked about the potential for Village Residential. He said that unlike some of the other
developers in Palo Alto SummerHill is good on, as he put it, fence-line issues and in terms of the
adjacency to Ferne is one story, he mentioned that. The question to address is whether we
should increase the density of the land and that potential on the value of the land, but I am not
sure that that is really for the purview of the Planning Commission, but it is a land use issue
whether it should be up zoned and not necessarily related to the quality of plans.
I also had a conversation earlier today with Penny Ellson who pointed out that there are
developments on the Mountain View side of this sort of Mountain View-Palo Alto border. We
are aware of the Mayfield site development that came before us, but we are not directly aware of
the developments that are going on at the San Antonio Center at San Antonio and El Camino.
Apparently there are proposals for increased development in terms of housing and in terms of
additional retail. The question that she asked me and for which I didn’t have an answer was
when we compare in terms of baseline and comparison, do we compare it to the existing which is
I am not sure if it is a conforming use or a nonconforming use, but do we compare it to the
existing use or do we compare it to the existing zoning? Perhaps at some point the City Attorney
can answer that question. That concludes my disclosure.
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. With that we will go to the public. At this point I have 15 cards.
If there are any other members of the public who would like to speak this evening please submit
a card. We will take those for about another five minutes.
I will call the speaker and then the person to follow them. If the person to follow the current
speaker could come sit down in the first row here before they speak that would help facilitate
things. Again, as you approach if you could state your name for the record and you will have
three minutes. Our first speaker will be Sandra Scaling followed by Osborne Hardison.
Welcome.
Ms. Sandra Scaling, Palo Alto: Thank you, Commissioners. Good evening. I am a resident. I
am not a member of the Greenmeadow neighborhood organization or Greendale. I am very
impressed with the neighborhood community spirit that is here. I live on the other side of San
Antonio Road. I live in the San Antonio Villages townhouses. So my issue with any property
that is developed in this area is the impact on the traffic on San Antonio Road.
I am also concerned about there are 300 children in daycare at that daycare center. That daycare
center has been active for as long as I have raised my children in this area. So I am concerned
what is happening with those families.
San Antonio Road is the major thoroughfare for trucks in and out of our community to Los Altos
and Mountain View. It is the primary road that is used by the major trucks. That is the zoning of
that road. I don’t know what that is but I do know that because the other arteries are Rengstorff
and Embarcadero and those roads are not for trucks. San Antonio is. San Antonio was just
beautifully redeveloped. Unfortunately they forgot to put the bike lane in the middle. It may be
a walker friendly area neighborhood according to the internet, but as someone who lives there,
and now with the new school there, which has been an excellent addition to that community area
it is not a very safe neighborhood to walk through.
Transit is marginal. I cannot take the bus from there to my place of work at the VA Hospital. It
is quicker for me to ride my bike than it is to take the bus. The train is out of the question.
I am worried because this is an access road, a major access road. As evidence we have just had a
major earthquake in Japan, this is a major access road in the event of an earthquake. There are
no other arteries in or out. Developments, pieces of property in Mountain View behind the
Toyota dealership that are vacant and the HP site are huge pieces of property. I am asking the
Commission to be mindful, creative, and innovative when approving our future sites for future
housing, future developments, and the impact on our schools. I
See advertisements on 101 advertising live here, send your kids to Palo Alto schools. I come
from a generation where they were closing the schools, and we were telling the school district
please keep them open the city will change. Young people will come, and they are here, and our
schools are feeling it. My son is a teacher at Gunn High School. Thank you for your time.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Osborne Hardison followed by Warren Storkman. Welcome.
Mr. Osborne Hardison, Palo Alto: Actually I have a slide I wanted to get up. I am homeowner
from Palo Alto. I have been a homeowner since 1995. I live in the Greendell neighborhood.
First off I just want to touch on a couple of corrections I think to the SummerHill presentation.
They are not on or the project is not located directly on San Antonio it is on a little service road
off of San Antonio so the impact on traffic might be a little bit more than implied just being able
to get right on San Antonio there.
The San Antonio station, as you probably all are aware has also been on the list to be closed by
Caltrain, so the implication that that is going to be around might not be so true in the future.
Specifically though I wanted to discuss kind of the proposed development from the standpoint of
its impact on the neighborhood in South Palo Alto, specifically with regard to fair share. I went
through and looked at Census data from 2000-2010 and came up with the chart that you see up
there. It shows that the overwhelming number of new homes in the area have been on the South
Palo Alto side of the city. When you take into account the impact of more houses and what it
does to the schools, the traffic, the infrastructure, and you are thinking about fair share think
about what we have already been burdened with in South Palo Alto. That is pretty much what I
wanted to talk about.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Warren Storkman followed by Srini Sankaran.
Mr. Warren Storkman, Palo Alto: I live in the Fairfield Estates, which seems to be overlooked
many times. We are a group of several homes in there. When I bought my property back in
1954 we were given the impression that this part of the city was going to stay R-1 8,000 square
foot lots and ever since then everybody tries to encroach upon that and cut the size of whatever
they want to do down. Unfortunately I guess the battle is in Oregon Avenue. When the city was
divided in two, when they decided to build Oregon Avenue as most of you probably know the
haves and the have-nots. We are in the south of Oregon Avenue and with the have-nots and we
accept all the unlikely things like we want to have such as the gentleman just mentioned. We are
getting an overabundance, crowding in the area. I just want to say that I would like to see it stay
R-1.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Srini Sankaran followed by Marlene Kawahata.
Mr. Srini Sankaran, Palo Alto: I am the President of Greendell Community Association. As you
can see Greendell is the neighborhood that is right next to 525 San Antonio Avenue. We have
about a little over 100 homes in that community, and six of them are fence line neighbors of 525
San Antonio.
Next slide, please. Greendell is overwhelmingly opposed to rezoning 525 San Antonio Avenue
from its current R-1 (8000) to any higher density housing. Why? There are several reasons and
I will mention a few because we have only three minutes.
The first is schools. South Palo Alto has had an enrollment expansion. Let me focus on
elementary schools and our own neighborhood elementary Fairmeadow. There has been roughly
a 25 percent increase in the number of Fairmeadow area elementary school students/residents in
the last five years. That is an increase of 121 elementary school student residents. It is rather an
understatement to say that the school district has a major challenge in handling this growth.
Increasing the density of housing in this area will make the problem worse.
Next is the general increase in housing in South Palo Alto. We all know that the bulk of recent
housing has been in the south. Between the recently built and the proposed to be built we are
looking at about 1,000 units in just a few years. It is not just the schools but almost all public
facilities in South Palo Alto are difficult to get. For example, just like many people in Palo Alto
I play recreational sports. I coach kids’ sports and such. Getting a playground reserved has been
just extremely difficult. I just found out yesterday that playgrounds at Cubberley are booked five
months in advance. We are already seeing a deterioration in quality of life due to
disproportionate increase in housing in relation to the public facilities we have, adding more
density than what we have planned before in the Comprehensive Plan will be not a good thing.
Third is the traffic on San Antonio Avenue. San Antonio Avenue is a border street between
Mountain View and Palo Alto. We can’t just take Palo Alto. In Mountain View along between
Middlefield and El Camino 475 new housing units have been built in recent years. About 900
new housing units, and another 100,000 square feet of office or retail space is planned for
expansion soon. So just think about that for a second, roughly 1,400 new houses, and 100,000
square feet of new retail space between Middlefield and El Camino on San Antonio. We think
adding more previously unplanned houses to pour into the already crowded street there would
make our neighborhood traffic even worse.
In summary, we think making a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to 525 San Antonio Avenue to
higher density housing is not good for our community. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Marlene Kawahata followed by Neharma Treves.
Ms. Marlene Kawahata, Palo Alto: I live on Calcaterra Place. I would like everyone to stand up
who is here, not everyone is going to talk, but there are a lot of people who took time out of their
busy day to come. Could we all stand up and show you how many people are actually here, all
objecting to this rezoning. So make a note of that.
I as I said object to the rezoning. It is going to tremendously impact the San Antonio Road. We
have lived here since 1993 and I have seen a big increase in traffic already. With these 900-plus
new units coming in a very close area around San Antonio there is going to be a tremendous
effect. What is in it for Palo Alto to increase this density on this piece of property? Do we get
anything out it? Is it of any use to us at all?
Another thing I want to say is I object to them having a private road. I know the Charleston
condo units on Charleston and El Camino there is a problem with the neighbors parking on that
property. I am sure that will affect Ferne. There will be people in that complex that will be
parking on Ferne and causing lots of problems with those private roads.
When people ask me what part of Palo Alto I live in I say I live in the Wal-Mart size of Palo Alto
because that is how I think we are treated. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Neharma Treves followed by Linda Lingane.
Ms. Neharma Treves, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne Avenue and it abuts the daycare center. Before
I moved we had rented a house at 381 Parkside in Greenmeadow. We fell in love with the
neighborhood and we decided to purchase a house, which we did in 1987. That year we
continued to remodel it and we enjoyed it very much. Since then we enjoyed not only the house
but also the neighborhood that was associated with low-density housing area, and outstanding
neighbors. I would like also to say that we enjoyed the children in the daycare whose voices we
hear during the daytime until five o’clock. By then everything calms down and quiet like in a
park surrounds us. We would like to keep it that way. Everybody who supports me please stand
up. Thank you, and thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Linda Lingane followed by Lisa Steinback.
Ms. Linda Lingane, Palo Alto: Thank you. First of all I would like to thank the Commissioners
for taking the time to listen to us all.
I would like to have you takeaway two words from my presentation, and that is right balance. I
want to make a distinction actually between what SummerHill was talking about about a
transition because they are right in terms of numbers that it would be a transition, what they are
presenting. But I want to make a different point. I would like to have the audience as well as
you just take an experiment to make a point, very briefly. To let go of anything in your hands,
please. Let go of everything in your hands. Then to clench your two hands into a very tight fist,
and please do that. Please try. Just experiment with it. Clenching your hands into a very tight
fist and then let go. When you let go look at your hands, notice what your hands look like. Now
if you could clench your hands a little bit less than before, and the reason I am asking you to do
this is so you can feel the difference. Let go. Then do the opposite, spread your hands very wide
and let go. You can feel what the point I am trying to make is that human beings are beings of
balance. They want their hands to be in balance. It is when you stretch too far, you clench too
tightly it is unstable. You can’t keep it that way. You want to come back to balance. Other
examples might be you don’t want food to be too salty or you don’t want it to not have enough
salt. You don’t want favorite tools to be too high or too low, you want them right there in
balance.
The stability is the thing that I wanted to point that I think is behind all these neighbors. The R-1
zoning that is there now is stable. I have been there 30 years and a number of people around me
have been at their homes for a very long time. So the lot size is almost proven because of that
stability to be the right balance. It is the right size.
Stability means that we are attached to our homes. We take pride in them and all of us do. We
are willing to invest ourselves in the homes. It is not just a place to live it is our place to live.
We want to be there for a long time. That sense of ownership spills over into the neighborhood.
I called a number of people yesterday in my area, a number of us are here and some of us could
not come, but we are a few blocks away. We still felt so concerned. When I called maybe 20
people every one was concerned. So right balance please. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Lisa Steinback followed by Penny Ellson.
Ms. Lisa Steinback, Palo Alto: Good evening I live on Creekside Drive, speaking for
Greenmeadow Community Association. The following position statement was approved by
Greenmeadow Community Association last evening with 63 residents present, 60 voted in favor
and three against. Greenmeadow Community Association supports Staff’s recommendation to
deny the applicant’s request for a zone change from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 low-density
multifamily Village Residential, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Village
Residential land use designation. Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan, and with the recently updated Zoning Ordinance, and with direction that
Council has provided regarding the Housing Element Update.
Further, we do not support any alternate zoning change to this site that might increase density of
the project. The developer is not entitled to this increase based on the current zoning and
Comprehensive Plan. Housing and number of square feet built in South Palo Alto during the
term of the current Comprehensive Plan is already more than twice the number of units that were
projected in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Element. Number of square feet
developed in South Palo Alto overall already exceeds the volume projected in the
Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this project will exacerbate a critical problem of unplanned
housing development, and already is affecting South Palo Alto schools, playing fields, space
availability, and transportation systems.
The purpose of zoning is to provide predictability of land us for planning purposes and to protect
the rights of nearby property owners. Not simply for direct impacts on adjacent properties like
privacy, use, and noise concerns, but also for long-term city planning purposes. For
development of community services and infrastructure that support education, recreation,
transportation, etc. Repeated unpredictable up zoning of smaller sites of the request of
developers on South Palo Alto has created an aggregate growth scenario that was not planned
for. Over the last ten years this has undermined resident’s trust in the City’s commitment to the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning. More important, it has undermined the usefulness of those
policy documents for planning purposes, particularly with regard to transportation, playing field
space, and school enrollment. We ask you to demonstrate with your decision today that the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance mean something that we can rely on. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I would like to remind members of the audience that we prefer to have
an environment where people are free to speak their minds, and we ask that people neither
applaud nor boo so that all positions can be hear, and people can feel comfortable stating those
positions. Thank you. Penny Ellson followed by Wendy Kandasamy.
Ms. Penny Ellson, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live on El Capitan Place and I am here for
Greenmeadow Civic Affairs Committee. I want to first of all thank Staff and the applicant for
taking time to meet with us and help us understand what is being proposed here.
Within the lifetime of this Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan the City of Mountain View has built
and/or approved a number of massive TOD projects on South Palo Alto’s border. The Crossings
359 units, you will see up here. The San Antonio Circles project 118 units where built within the
half-mile radius of the train station. In addition, in the last five years Mountain View has
approved a Final EIR for the Mayfield Mall, former Hewlett Packard site that permits up to 530
units, which has not yet been built. They are also processing a Draft EIR for the San Antonio
Shopping Center, which would permit an additional 100,000 square feet of retail/office space
and 350 new apartments. Much of this development was achieved through Mountain View
Precise Plan Amendments, and therefore was not accounted for in the current City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan EIR Impacts Analysis.
These projects will certainly impact San Antonio Road at Alma, Middlefield, and Charleston
intersections. The traffic study for the Mayfield Mall EIR subtracts trips for that site’s current
use, which have not been on the road in more than a decade. So the actual automobile impacts of
the massive Mayfield Mall project really are unknown. Neither project projects significant auto
impacts at the San Antonio-Middlefield intersection. We are skeptical.
Each of these projects relied heavily on access to the train station to justify higher density. This
is worrisome because South Palo Alto has experienced, since the train station has opened,
repeated reductions in train service to this train station. This is usually associated with the
addition of Bullet Trains, which bypass San Antonio station. The recent proposal by Caltrain to
close the station raises serious questions about the long-term viability of that station. So we are
concerned. We are also concerned about the lack of funding solutions for a long-term station
there.
In addition, the VTA 35 and 32 bus lines serve this area because they are designed to serve the
train station. So it is not really clear even if we will have the bus service once the train station
goes, if it does. So even with the train station it is stretch to characterize 525 San Antonio as
having good transit access. It outside the half-mile radius from the station on a high-volume
arterial truck route, as you have heard. The pedestrian route to the train station crosses an
expressway at grade, not a pedestrian friendly environment. The traffic study for 525 San
Antonio – I am going to have to stop here.
Chair Tuma: Wendy Kandasamy followed by Shirley Eaton.
Ms. Wendy Kandasamy, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. The traffic study for 525
San Antonio indicates that the project will yield no negative auto traffic impacts in the proposed
project when compared to the current use would actually reduce trips. While this is true, we
think the comparison is inappropriate. T
he study compares the project to a grandfathered, nonprofit use, which is no longer permitted,
which provided a significant public benefit that is in very short supply, affordable local childcare
and preschool services. The community accepted the very significant traffic impacts and
inconveniences of the previous project because the benefits the facility provided were so
important to the community. The same cannot be said of the proposed project. We believe that
the project should not be compared to the previous use, but to the use for which the site is zoned.
In that comparison the project would increase transportation impacts.
Further, we ask the Commission to consider projected combined impacts on San Antonio
aggregate approved Mountain View projects, recognizing that the San Antonio-Middlefield
intersection is already stressed and that the approved Mayfield EIR by subtracting trips that may
not have been on San Antonio Road for a decade fails to measure the actual auto impacts that the
Mayfield project will have on this intersection. Further, it should consider the potential impacts
of the San Antonio Shopping Center growth. That EIR is underway.
The exit from the project via San Antonio Avenue to San Antonio Road already is dangerous to
navigate. It will be more so as these other massive projects move forward. This is an important
consideration.
The site plan presented by the developer includes a gate to the Greendell campus, which the
developer presents as access to Cubberley. This would be an improper characterization of the
connectivity provided by this gate. PAUSD policy limits this use. It says visits during school
hours should be first arranged with the teacher and principal or a designee. To ensure the safety
of students and staff and avoid potential disruptions all visitors shall register immediately upon
entering any school building or grounds when school is in session. Further, any change to
campus access like this gate would have to go through a facility review by PAUSD and cannot
be assumed to be acceptable. Even if approved, it could not be assumed to be permanent
because future plans for the Greendell site are unknown. A review of several years of public
district documents regarding enrollment growth and facilities planning reveals that the site
requires major renovation and has been identified as one of two top choices for a future
elementary school site. Further, a review of such gates – thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Shirley Eaton followed by Martha Sbarbori
Ms. Shirley Eaton, Palo Alto: My husband and I have lived Shasta Drive since 1974. I was
Penny’s predecessor as co-chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee and was therefore
responsible for a good many of the events that you learned about in the history of Greenmeadow
including the single-story overlay, and the conversion of Cubberley High School to Cubberley
Community Center.
To continue with the Greenmeadow point. Further, any change in campus access like this gate
would have to go through a facility review by PAUSD and cannot be assured to be acceptable.
Even if approved, it could not be assumed to be permanent because future plans for the
Greendell site are unknown. A review of several years of public district documents regarding
enrollment growth and facilities planning reveals that the site requires major renovation and has
been identified as one of two top choices for a future elementary school site. Further, a review of
such gates at other elementary school campuses during off hours indicates that many PAUSD
sites lock their gates after school hours. A gate that connects to property owned and controlled
by another body should not be construed as providing connectivity to a City of Palo Alto
Community Center as that gate could, and probably would be closed and locked at most times of
day except school commute times.
The developer has argued that the location on San Antonio Road cannot justify this evaluation
that a single-family development would require. However, families are having single-family
homes right next door in the Greendell neighborhood with some proximity to San Antonio and
they are doing extensive remodeling on top of purchase price at market rates. We think this is
evidence that the market does support single-family valuation at this location. The City has no
obligation to support a developer speculative bid that may depend on up zoning. So therefore we
ask that you keep the current zoning and do not upgrade it. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Martha Sbarbori followed by Lanie Wheeler.
Ms. Martha Sbarbori, Palo Alto: I live on Ben Lomond Drive, Greenmeadow Neighborhood. I
have lived there since December of 1976, which puts me at over 34 years.
Aggregate housing growth. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project including but not limited to the General Plan,
Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect, report cites less than significant impact. We respectfully
disagree. The requested up zoning will more than double the zoned use of the project. Taken by
itself this might not have created a negative impact, however this project must be viewed in
aggregate with all the other projects that have been approved above and beyond growth that was
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and EIR in recent years.
A cursory review of the number of units in South Palo Alto in the Housing Element reveals that
through multiple Individual Review Processes that also did not consider aggregates multiple
projects were approved that were not studied in the EIR. When we look at these newly built
projects in aggregate we see that the housing built in South Palo Alto during the term of the
present Comprehensive Plan is already more than twice the projected number of units and square
footage.
In essence, through repeated decisions to approve up zoning of small projects without looking at
aggregates the City has seriously undermined the long-term planning process that should be
rooted in Comprehensive Plan policies. This makes it impossible to plan thoughtfully for long-
term impacts on schools, transportation, parks, playing fields, libraries, etc. To say that the
impact of this project is less than significant is misleading when viewed in this context.
The traffic study associated with this project looks at specific, very localized impacts of this
project comparing them to the current use of the site. This kind of project review has created an
enormous disconnect between the long-term planning process that the Comprehensive Plan is
supposed to provide and type of review that is used for project approval. The aggregate result
has been unplanned overdevelopment.
We respectfully ask you to support the Staff’s recommendation. Further, we do not support any
alternate zoning change that may increase density of the project. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Lanie Wheeler? I don’t see her. Okay, we will pass her over for now.
Susie Siegel followed by Elizabeth Alexis.
Ms. Susie Siegel, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto. I am mother of a second
grader at Fairmeadow Elementary. I am a concerned parent about the rezoning to higher density
housing that was currently allowed, as it will increase enrollment in our Palo Alto public schools
that are already out of space. What I wanted to do was highlight four impacts of the increased
enrollment especially on the elementary schools.
In the March 8 Board Meeting Minutes of the Palo Alto School District it notes that there were
strains on district resources, inability to go to their neighborhood schools, the children there.
Also that class size reduction programs were at risk, and that there were some emotional, social,
and physical health concerns. So currently there are strains on the district resources so more
students further strain this. There is little excess capacity. Right now the district has planned for
construction of additional classroom capacity at Ohlone, Fairmeadow, and Duveneck elementary
schools, which total about ten classrooms. It also states in the Board Meetings that from 2009 to
2011 282 new students have enrolled in the Palo Alto School District, so this expansion is
keeping to that growth. They also state that the medium growth is forecasted about 199 new
students for next year, and that the high growth is forecasted at 399 new students for next year.
In terms of parents really wanting to see their students or their children go to their neighborhood
school, last year there was about 100 students that went to overflow schools. So there is this
inability to be able to have your child go to their neighborhood school. There was a research that
was done by the Lapkoff & Gobalet demographic research that stated – and they have been kind
of looking at the Palo Alto School District statistics for quite some time. They show that the
kindergarteners and first graders are surprisingly high, the enrollments, and it continues to grow
in the south cluster.
So since I am running out of time I just wanted to mention that there is the class size reduction
program right now that keeps the K-3rd grade at about 20 students. Right now they are averaging
about 21 moving to 22. They wanted to extend that reduction program into the high schools to
try to keep the classes for special subjects at 20 and it looks like with the increase in the number
of families that may or may not happen.
Lastly, they had taken a survey of the students in terms of emotional, and social, and physical
health and found that as of March 2010 that 31 percent of the students said that they did not have
anyone at the school campus that they considered a mentor. Not a teacher, administrator,
counselor, coach, staff, or other volunteer. That was in section 1.1 of page 2. So we need to help
support these 31 percent before we add more. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Elizabeth Alexis followed by Sandra Rickard.
Ms. Elizabeth Alexis, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. While I am with Greenmeadow
these comments are my own. I would associate myself with those that were made earlier but this
I would like to add.
There were two comments simply about the way the analysis is done. One is on the traffic
impacts, which compares the proposed use to the current school. Unfortunately the current
school is closing in two months. They have announced this. They have told their students to
find a new home. It is really a sad thing for our community. However, in two months there will
be zero trips generated by that space. So I think it is fair enough to look at what would be under
the existing zoning to compare it, but using the current school is probably not a reasonable
method.
The second thing is that repeatedly the documentation talks about that our R-1 (8000) could be
seven units or 14 units or something per acre. Well, it doesn’t work quite that way because it
depends on the exact shape of the lot and the access to the lot, and so on. in this case we can see
that the previous map was probably a pretty good idea of how many houses under the current
zoning you could fit onto that lot, which is ten, which works out to be somewhere between three
and four houses per acre. So I would just encourage you to use the actual parameters of the lot
rather than some generic numbers.
My final point is that I personally believe there are places where we can add housing and we
should be adding housing. This is actually a really bad place for people to live. You want as few
people living there as possible. There are two reasons for this. One, and this was mentioned by
one speaker, but the primary egress from this neighborhood is a shot straight into traffic on San
Antonio Road. It is extraordinarily dangerous. I know that the Planning Department has worked
with the neighborhoods to see if there is anything they can do and nobody has been able to come
up with anything. I would even suspect at some point it becomes closed.
The second thing is that I am listed as a contact for the Greenmeadow Neighborhood and there is
an additional cul-de-sac sort of similar to this one next to it and around the corner. I get calls
from people in the neighborhood who live there saying am I part of Greenmeadow? I am like,
no. They are like, who do I belong to? The answer is no one. So these small inlet lots unless
you do aggressive things to make them look just like the adjoining neighborhood like Greendell
are going to be another island. We should not do that to people. Thank you very much.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our last speaker is Sandra Rickard.
Ms. Sandra Milne Rickard, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne on the first cul-de-sac off the San Antonio
frontage road. I use that as a major egress when I am going many places. The other end of our
neighborhood or development area is Alma, which is fine but these places are land bound or
bound by their configuration.
San Antonio access road has no egress from past the daycare center towards the Middlefield
corner, or at the other end not quite to Alma but there is access getting up to San Antonio Road.
So it is a long stretch of no egress along the one perimeter.
When I go out, and I do frequently, and I have gotten quite bold so that I can handle it. Many of
my friends won’t handle it who come to visit me. They will not use the egress to San Antonio
Road to get to their homes in South Palo Alto or North Palo Alto past Oregon, because they get
flummoxed, it is too much impact. I want you to understand the physical nature.
You go to the corner past the daycare center and you go to the opening that allows you to cross
into San Antonio Road. Now you can turn right, but people rarely do, to go towards El Camino.
That is not such a problem. But to get out of my neighborhood I have to cross those two lanes
and go to a waiting place big enough for one car. You wait for the traffic light cycle, and you
see the traffic coming up behind you, and it moves very quickly unless it is parking lot time
because the traffic impact is so thick and then it moves very slowly. But there is a paint job on
San Antonio that crosses the two left hand lanes, the two right hand lanes, etc. and cars don’t
obey it. So getting out is a trick. Adding the 23 homes coming out into that area, we line up
along the closed border. You line up to get out. It is doable now. I don’t understand the traffic
study. It has nothing to do with life. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. With that I will close the public comment and bring it back to the
Commission. The applicant has up to three minutes for any closing comments that they would
like to make.
Ms. Kamangar: Thank you. Let me just take on a few of the topics that were mentioned here to
try to address some of them here. Regarding Caltrain everybody is aware that there is a potential
closure list and the San Antonio Caltrain station is on that list. It is not with certainty that that
will happen and nothing will take away the infrastructure that is already there, and that will
remain there. An additional thing that we should be aware of is that as part of the Mayfield
development project they will be constructing an underground pedestrian access from the
Mayfield side of the tracks, under, and onto the Caltrain side, which will provide for definitely
improved and safer pedestrian access. So I think that is a significant improvement and should be
kept in mind as well.
Regarding schools there is no doubt that the school district has capacity challenges, but at the
same time this project with its six student generation is beyond what is allowed by the current
zoning can hardly be called a significant impact in the context of a school district that has an
enrollment of 12,000 students.
I did also want to mention I did have discussions with the school districts, Dr. Kevin Skelly in
particular, about the pedestrian path. I pointed out that it would be done in a similar fashion, no
gate, as is currently at the 90-degree angle in Ferne Drive. If you have been in that community
you can nicely walk from Ferne Avenue to Cubberley to Greendell and beyond. That is a
wonderful feature in a community to connect neighborhoods as opposed to close them off.
Certainly, when I talked to him he was all for that. So if there is a process he was all up for that.
I would also like to acknowledge property owner’s tremendous contributions to the community
with the 35 years of his service as a daycare provider to the community. He has done a
wonderful service to also the families he has by giving them more than a year notice of the
closure.
Lastly, I would say that we don’t think that ten homes using the R-1 zoning is the appropriate use
on this site either, as was indicated by another speaker. The market is extremely efficient. So
when the ten-lot subdivision was approved back in 2002 first of all there was a lot of discussion
about shouldn’t we consider this site for slightly higher density given its location? Ultimately
they had to vote on the project that was before them and they approved it, but clearly the market
has spoken since those houses were never built. I don’t believe the City is interested in adding
ten more houses on San Antonio in the $2.0 million-plus type of price range. I don’t see your
goals in alignment with that.
So in closing I would just say that I believe that we provided a proposal that is in keeping with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element, provides for some moderate increase in
density, and does so in a way that is respectful and light in impacts to the neighbors. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioners, now is our opportunity for combined questions and
comments. We will do a first go around, possibly the only go around, at five minutes apiece.
We will start off with Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a couple of questions for Staff on the road
width. In the Staff Report on page 4 and 5 it talks about the original development with 26 homes
having a road width of 32 feet, which would be consistent with the new Palo Alto Private Streets
Ordinance. Then it talks about the revised development plan with 23 homes having a private
street of 26-foot width, widening to 32 feet at the end. It doesn’t comment about whether the 26-
foot width is consistent with the new Private Street Ordinance. Is it?
Ms. French: It has not been analyzed. It was such a recent submittal.
Mr. Williams: The provision is if there is parking on the sides of that. In this case they have
added the aprons for each unit. It also has what could theoretically be two off-street spaces in
the aprons that it could be 26. That requires Council approval and Commission approval of the
Subdivision Map.
Commissioner Fineberg: So if there are aprons it is not consistent?
Mr. Williams: The problem with the previous project was that wasn’t anywhere else to park. It
was basically 26 feet and no place to park at or off-street other than the garages, which came
right up to the street. In this case they have pushed that back. The way the language reads is if
there is parking provided on the side of the street either in like turnouts or in this case aprons
then it can be 26 feet. Otherwise if there aren’t then the 32 feet would be required so that you
could have enough width to allow parking on at least one side of the street.
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so let me clarify. If there are aprons then 26 feet is consistent.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Fineberg: Does the current proposal as it stands include aprons for all? I thought
I read it was only some.
Mr. Williams: I thought it was all of them.
Ms. French: The original proposal has some. The 23-lot concept has all with aprons.
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. I am going to take on the difficult task of talking
about school impacts in the moment I have left. When a developer pays an impact fee the
maximum allowed by the state is considered to fully mitigate that impact. Even though because
we are basic aid it is only half of what the calculated maximum requirement is. So it doesn’t
fully mitigate it but we must consider it as fully mitigated. That said, and I understand in my
deliberation I cannot by law consider impact on the schools if the impact fees are paid, however I
have questions about the cumulative impacts on the schools in our Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
The school district has added ten or 15 maybe more trailers in the last few, two or three, years.
They are currently building ten classrooms. They have gone on record that they are going to
need I think the number was something astounding like 50 classrooms in the next five years.
The acquisition of trailers and building that has already happened is in excess of one school, and
40 would be two elementary schools. So at what point do we get to the place where cumulative
impacts matter?
I would differ with the applicant’s numbers. I don’t understand how they calculated. The
numbers I have seen from Lapkoff & Gobalet are single-family homes yield one kid. So if we
are building 23 homes that is a minimum of 23 kids. Every year their numbers go up. So I don’t
see how if we are having 23 more children, we are building a classroom on top of we have
already crossed the threshold that we are building two schools worth of classrooms with four
more schools coming, how can we not consider cumulative impacts?
Ms. Silver: Commissioner Fineberg, I think you need to analyze the cumulative impacts just as
you analyze the project impacts. State law imposes a limit on how to mitigate whether it is
project impacts or cumulative impacts. The state legislation very clearly says that the only way
you can mitigate those impacts is through the payment of impact fees.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka.
Commissioner Tanaka: I also have a few questions for Staff. The first question is I realize that
we can’t take schools into account, but what about this was a daycare service, an affordable
daycare service. Is that an impact that we can take into account? It is not technically a public
school, it is a private daycare. So I was wondering if that was an impact. A lot of the speakers
mentioned the loss of that and how it provided a good service to the city for many years.
Ms. Silver: For CEQA purposes are you asking?
Commissioner Tanaka: Correct.
Ms. Silver: That is not typically. As I understand it this daycare use is going to end regardless
of the project. So the use and the prospective displacement if any of the daycare center is really
a separate process. It is not related to this so you really can’t consider that as part of this project.
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Was there outreach done to the Byron Street neighbors? I heard
a lot of speakers from the other parts of the surrounding neighborhoods, but I was wondering
about Byron Street. It is an adjacent cul-de-sac.
Mr. Williams: That is where the apartments are, right? I believe they did have meetings with
them but you would have to ask the applicant specifically. I guess they did.
Commissioner Tanaka: Then I was wondering about the private roads. I know that the FAR was
not calculated, but I was wondering are the private roads included in the lot size when
calculating the FAR for these houses.
Ms. French: It is subtracted so the net lot size is what the FAR is based on.
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: My first question, since the daycare use is going away, in term of the
impact do we compare it with the current use or the currently zoned use?
Ms. Silver: For CEQA purposes this is a baseline issue. The law regarding baseline is
constantly evolving. As of today the baseline law is that you look at the current use on the
ground in use at the time that the environmental document is prepared and compare it to the
future use.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. In terms of since the neighborhood school, which I
understand is Fairmeadow, is impacted in enrollment and therefore this increase in housing will
mean that there will be an increase in overflow students. Is the transportation impact of the
increase of overflow students, and those students having to attend different schools than their
neighborhood school, is that a transportation impact that it should be considered, and was it
considered?
Ms. Silver: I think that would be a fair issue to evaluate in the environmental document.
However, since we are only dealing with six additional students and it is speculative at this point
where the overflow transportation pattern would be I don’t think that that particular issue was
analyzed in this document.
Commissioner Keller: I think that it is actually probably if you take 23 houses compared to ten
houses, because you can’t fit the amount of houses when you have a street network in there. So
therefore it is reasonable to consider the baseline ten houses, you have 13 additional students at
least. So six students is not an appropriate number.
Do you know how many Caltrain stations an hour go rush hour through this point in either
direction? Okay, well from the Caltrain schedule that is on my old Palm Trio that I still use it
says that there is one per hour, at least there was when I downloaded the schedule. So there is
one per hour in each direction. Out of so many trains there is one per hour on an hourly basis
and that is not very many. Even if it remains open that is not a major profession of Caltrain
service compared to California Avenue and downtown. I believe that that is why when we were
considering transit-oriented we did not consider the San Antonio station as being transit-oriented.
Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: It might have had something to do with that, but I think it more had to do with the
fact that we really don’t have development that is in proximity to that. It is mostly Mountain
View’s development.
Commissioner Keller: With respect to the underpass, I understood that the EIR process for the
San Antonio, the Mayfield redevelopment actually didn’t mandate that they have an underpass
under Central Expressway, but they are supposed to consider it. I don’t think it was actually
required. Do you know whether that is actually required as part of the development?
Mr. Williams: I thought it was. I am sorry we don’t have our Transportation Staff here tonight.
Commissioner Keller: I remember going to one of those hearings when it was approved on the
Mountain View side, and something to the effect that they were considering it and they will see
if they can make it feasible, but they were not guaranteeing it is what I recall.
Mr. Williams: I am sure Penny could answer that.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. The other issue is in terms of are we allowed to or should we
consider the market value or the salability of R-1 (8000) foot home versus the marketability or
salability of the proposed increased density homes?
Mr. Williams: No that is not before the Commission.
MOTION
Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. Then I will make a motion to move Staff
recommendation.
SECOND
Commissioner Fineberg: Second.
Chair Tuma: Okay, so that is a motion by Commissioner Keller to approve the Staff
recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Keller, do you wish to
speak to your motion?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think that this is not a good location for higher density housing. I
think that the proper zoning is appropriate. It is not within half a mile or in fact 2,000 feet,
which is less than half a mile, which is the way the Comprehensive Plan quote that was given by
the applicant read. A half a mile would be, if my math is right, 2,640 feet as opposed to the
2,000 that is indicated in the quote from the Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of this, with San Antonio having one train per hour it is not really a place where there is
going to be a lot of transit use. I would suspect that there is a fair likelihood that if the San
Antonio train station closes that that is not going to lead to an increase in bus traffic in serving
Palo Alto. In any event, it seems to be ratcheting in one direction with the only exception that I
have seen in the many years that I have been seeing transit stuff going on in Palo Alto is when
the VTA increased service for the 88 bus for the L and M routes for Gunn High School. That is
basically the only increase I have ever seen in VTA bus service for Palo Alto.
I think that in terms of the expectations that were made for people living in this area, the increase
in housing, and in terms of the cumulative dramatic increases in South Palo Alto that this is not
really a good place for more higher density housing. That is why we are looking at situations
like near transit, California Avenue. To the extent that Caltrain continues to live and they figure
out some way of funding it that is much more likely to be a place for transit. There are also a lot
more amenities. It is not a pleasant walk from San Antonio Road to Piazza’s shopping center,
which is identified as the shopping center for people to get groceries. Walking along Middlefield
past the gas station, trying to navigate your way through the crazy intersections there doesn’t
seem to be a very pleasant place. It is not very walkable. There are not many other amenities. I
suppose one could go to the Crossroads Market across the way. There are a few tiny stores like
that. But this is not really a very effective place for higher density housing.
I will close by mentioning that there was a talk called Winds of Change that I attended a few
years ago. At first I was sort of thinking about well, what are these winds of change? I was sort
of skeptical about this idea. I think it was Don Weden that gave the talk. One thing I thought
interesting about the talk that Don Weden said, is if you want to build higher density housing you
should put it in a place near transit, concentrate it together where there is a critical mass and we
can provide the services, and not hide it all over town in various places. In fact, we have done
the opposite of that especially in South Palo Alto. We have hid it all over town. We have put it
on East Meadow Circle. We have put it on West Bayshore. We have put in different places
where there were no amenities nearby, where there are no services nearby, and here is another
one adding to that mix. I think that we shouldn’t be doing that. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg, would you like to speak to your second?
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I would like to support Staff’s recommendation to not proceed
with the zoning change or the Comprehensive Plan designation change of the land use. As far as
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Village Residential I have said this on other projects, and
I believe that Palo Alto has not flushed out what Village Residential should look like. In most
communities Village Residential is an absolutely wonderful cluster of smaller tightly packed
homes that allow for the development of amenities on the properties. Things like large
significantly usable park space not a tot-lot that is a jungle gym. It includes interior walkways.
It includes facilities that would be let’s say shared parking so that there could be a justification
for reduction in a large lot that is not adjacent to the homes. It includes a site that is near a
vibrant village center, near significant public transit where people can really take trains to work,
not pretend that there is a train more than half a mile away that no one will use. So I don’t think
that our Village Residential is flushed out well enough, that it provides the benefits that one
would want from Village Residential.
As far as it being walkable, it is not a walkable neighborhood. The streets are busy. I will echo
the comments that other people have said. I don’t believe that our Mitigated Negative
Declaration has considered the cumulative impacts of the schools. I understand that they can be
mitigated legally to be considered less than significant, but even acknowledging the fact that
before mitigation they are significant is step that we must take in our environmental analysis.
I am sorry on this project that we don’t have a LEED-ND checklist, because it would go towards
informing us of whether this project according to an objective, measurable set of criteria is a
good neighborhood. It would not allow a neighborhood for housing. It would not allow for this
kind of subjective statement of it is a great neighborhood, you can walk to things, or there is
transit nearby. It tells you how to measure it, and then you measure it, and you get a response.
So unfortunately we don’t have the benefit whether that would vote it up or down I don’t know,
but it would have been helpful to have it to inform us.
I don’t believe the analysis has correctly handled the baselines for the yield of students
generated. I believe also there is issue in the environmental analysis with baselines for traffic,
the underlying zoning versus the current use. So I am wholly supportive of Staff’
recommendation and do not find in Attachment A we have the Draft Record of City of Palo Alto
Denial of 525 San Antonio, and by reference I would confer with findings that the findings are
not present. It is not supported in the zoning or the land use that is noted, for brevity I will
simply refer to page 2 and 3 of the Record of Land Use Action.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Staff still and then one for the applicant. If
I understand correctly R-1 daycare is a permitted use within the R-1 zone. So it is a legally
existing permitted use.
Ms. French: Daycare is a conditionally permitted use in an R-1 zone. This particular daycare
predates the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So in that case would it be a legally existing nonconforming?
Ms. French: Yes, legal nonconforming, but they would just have to come in for a use permit to
make it legal conforming.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So that is the reason why the underlying zoning supports the traffic analysis
and the ….
Ms. French: Yes, and because again per Cara it is a snapshot of time when the use was and
continues to be active until a certain date.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. If a school use, let’s say a public school were to take over the site
there again that is something that we have no basis upon which to rule, but yet schools are
permitted in the R-1 zone, particularly because we want to be able to have students in the
neighborhood walk to schools versus having them outside the R-1 zone, or outside
neighborhoods because then they would have to possibly get trucked or carpooled.
Ms. French: So private educational facility K-8 educational material would also require a
Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That was my next question. Private schools generally…
\
Ms. French: If it is a public school then typically those are zoned Public Facility, PF.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Lastly, I have a question for the applicant if one of you wouldn’t
mind taking the mike. It has to do with your below market rate units. Recently we have had this
housing bubble and the bubble has burst. Certain developments have moved forward. It is true
that the market rate housing really pays for the below market rate housing, but if the market rate
housing doesn’t sell what happens to the below market rate housing?
Ms. Kamangar: Well, if a project is conditioned to build the units typically the builder would
build them. I am not sure what your line of questioning is, but I guess I do know that on another
project recently here in Palo Alto we did something that was slightly more creative in the way
that it enabled the fees emanating from a development project enabled the ability for another
affordable housing project with many, many more units to be built in this city.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You are getting close to where my line of questioning here, which is that if
those housing units did not sell then would the developer – how would it become an in lieu fee?
How would that happen?
Ms. Kamangar: I am not sure if I follow your line of questioning really. If it is a condition of
approval then that is normally how it happens unless there are some other circumstances.
Vice-Chair Lippert: My experience has been that in lieu fees do not really cover the cost of
construction. So in this case, an entity like Palo Alto Housing Corp would be really managing
those properties if they were rental units. They could not build units for what it would cost to
build those houses. Whereas, if they were built as a condition of the project then they would be
there and they would be providing below market rate housing.
Ms. Kamangar: Right. If you are asking us whether we would be in a position to either build the
units or pay fees, we would be happy to do either, but our current proposal was based on building
the affordable units as part of the project.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That troubles me quite a bit, and that is one of the reasons why I am
inclined to support the current motion and deny the project. Below market rate housing is a very
important component of all the housing that we build in the city. By potentially losing those
below market rate units because of the market rate units not selling I couldn’t see this moving
forward the way it is currently configured.
I did look at some other options here but that is not currently what is on the table. So I would be
inclined to vote along with my colleagues in denying the project.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez.
Commissioner Martinez: first I have a question of Staff. The daycare center has been there for
37 years, we have heard tonight. I know this predates all of us, but what is the thinking in sort of
maintaining the R-1 zoning? Was it that this public benefit could continue in perpetuity? That it
was sort of in a protected realm by being in this R-1 zoning? I sort of feel what has happened is
the opposite. I looked at the Comprehensive Plan on page L-12 to see if there were an
appropriate zoning classification and it kind of falls into Major Institutional with nonprofit uses
and stuff like that. That doesn’t sound right either. Is there sort of a strategy in the R-1 planning
that has existed all these years?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. There isn’t really a strategy here as far as
trying to retain the daycare use. I think trying to retain the R-1 use allows the possibility for that,
or it allows R-1 single-family on larger lots that are clearly compatible with the existing,
particularly the Eichler, neighborhood and allows semi-institutional uses that are like daycare,
facilities that may be of service to the area without intensifying the residential component of it
and the various impacts they have. In this case I would differ with many of the speakers in terms
of the level of the impacts, but we believe that in terms of the consistency with Council direction
and where we do intensify that maintaining the R-1 zoning is appropriate for this location.
Commissioner Martinez: It has setup kind of a target for this site for developers. We have heard
that there have been over a half dozen that wanted to do higher density multifamily housing on
this site. So it didn’t really do sort of what I would have expected it to do, and that is sort of
really preserve probably one of the greatest community benefits that we need at this point in time
and that is for preschool and daycare. On the contrary it has sort of made it easier for it to go
away by it being R-1.
My point of view is that R-1 is probably the absolutely worst zoning for this site because that is
not the kind of housing we need to build in the 21st Century in Palo Alto. We don’t need bigger,
energy-using, sprawling houses and we particularly don’t need them in this neighborhood. I
always say planning is not black or white, it is kind of gray, and we are kind of in this gray area
where we do have these Eichler homes on one side but then we have school district property on
the back, and we have higher density apartments on the side, and a busy, busy street to the south.
It doesn’t feel like an R-1 zone. I am really sort of struggling in supporting the recommendation
that is on the floor tonight because it doesn’t sit well as an R-1 site. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: First of all I would like to praise the applicant. I think their behavior in
the way in which they have proceeded to pursue their project and their outreach to the
neighborhood proactively not only with the neighborhood but with the other neighbors, as well
as the imagination that they have used to pursue development schemes is really model behavior
for our community. We don’t often get applicants that are willing to do that homework. I think
they deserve a lot of praise and a lot of credit for the work that they have done there.
I also think that they have used the Village Residential zone exactly as that zone was written to
be and intended to be in that it is squeezed between and creates the opportunity to buffer to
dissimilar zones. It also adds something that the city really, really needs which is housing,
especially smaller housing that is more affordable. It is rare that we have the opportunity of an
application in front of us that actually has the potential to reduce parking and traffic impacts. All
of those things are very good and highly valued in this community.
San Antonio is a high-volume transit corridor and it is a very difficult street from a planning
standpoint for our city. It is not a good place for R-1 to be adjacent to of any sort, and yet it
exists there, as do any number of other uses. You can find almost every zone in the city along
that street. One of the primary concepts of zoning is to try and put together like zones. On one
side you have R-1 so keeping it R-1 makes sense. On the other side you have the RM-15 so
changing it to RM-15 makes sense.
However, my struggle here is that the Council has made it very clear that the R-1 zone is not to
be changed to higher density. I have been a very strong proponent of that policy, in large part
because I believe the R-1 zone is the heart of our community. It is the one thing that should not
be changed. Further, the way that the Village Residential zone was initially written was to
change zones other than R-1. So to despite some of the obvious issues that would compel me to
otherwise support this I find it very difficult to make findings different than what the Staff has.
It is imaginable to me that there could be a project that presents an opportunity so compelling
that the issues of policy and definition should be superceded and that the Commission should
create a recommendation to Council to make that sort of a change. I think the one thing that is
missing in this project that would make it that compelling for me personally is for it to be either
one, within an existing PTOD district or clearly meet the definition of a transit-oriented district,
or that it be significantly closer to a multimodal station so that the argument could be made
clearly and not border on the gray. So despite the obvious benefits that a project such as this
would have for our community, and especially the opportunity to bring smaller, more affordable
housing I will end up supporting the motion as it has been stated.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I have a question for Staff. My understanding is that this site despite it
being zoned R-1 is not on the Housing Inventory.
Ms. French: That is correct it is not on the Housing Inventory.
Chair Tuma: Why is that?
Mr. Williams: Generally because the Housing Inventory is for sites where we want to develop
multiple-family housing. So it is usually at least RM-15 and more likely RM-30 sites that we
would be pointing towards, and would be substantial housing sites.
Chair Tuma: Okay, great. I have a comment to make about the traffic analysis. I understand
what CEQA requires, but I think in a circumstance like this it makes sense to also analyze it
against the underlying zoning, because otherwise we are sort of denying reality in the sense that
we know that this use is going away. So to compare it against the existing use while maybe
mandated by CEQA I think in addition it would make sense to compare it to underlying zoning
looking forward. It give us a better look at the picture and a better understanding of what the
potential real impacts are in a situation where we know it is going away. If this application were
coming three months from now there would be nothing there. So then what would we compare it
against? Director.
Mr. Williams: I don’t disagree that it would be helpful to look at that scenario also. I do want to
point out that not rezoning it, leaving it as the zoning is now, maintains the opportunity for either
someone to take over the building as a daycare or for another daycare to move into that location.
So it does not necessarily mean it is going away. We have a lot of inquiries about where are sites
that daycares can go, and we are having more and more trouble finding those in the city. So
there is some possibility that if this site is not rezoned now and if ten single-family lots do not
look like a viable proposal then daycare may ultimately be one option.
Chair Tuma: I remember a couple of years ago we looked at a series of properties, as I recall
primarily in South Palo Alto, but I know from time to time we look at properties and consider
rezoning them. To you knowledge have we ever looked at rezoning this particular property in
any way at our initiation as opposed to by an applicant or the owner?
Mr. Williams: Not to my knowledge. The ones that we have looked at have generally been ones
that are commercial, have commercial uses on them, or retail type uses on them that are zoned
residentially, and rezoning them to preserve the commercial use.
Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. So I am generally of the mind that as a city we have a certain not
only obligation but also there is a certain reality of forces that we can’t control that will cause
some level of growth in this town, as it will everywhere. As a result we have an obligation to
provide some fair share of housing. I don’t agree with the fair share that ABAG has assigned us,
I think it is too much, but we have to look for good, solid, creative opportunities to build housing
in the right locations.
I do go back to the Joint Meeting that we had with Council in May of 2010 and then having
attended the subsequent meetings and discussions that they had regarding where should that
housing go, what type of housing should it be, and what policies should govern how we move
forward. I was then and continue to be fully supportive of the policies that the Council set forth
at that time including not rezoning R-1 to more dense housing. So to me in many ways while I
could go on about other reasons that this is sort of a good or bad place to be that is enough of an
analysis. This is not appropriate under the current guidelines and circumstances from Council.
I would agree with Commissioner Garber that there could be circumstances very compelling
where you could rezone an R-1 district. This is not in my view anywhere close to that sort of set
of compelling circumstances. So for me it is actually fairly easy to support the Staff’s
recommendation based on that policy alone.
I do agree with many of the comments that were made earlier this evening regarding impacts.
Yes this .58 as opposed to half a mile away from fixed rail. I used to own a home right around
the corner from here years ago, so there is no conflict. It is not a pedestrian friendly corridor
along this stretch of San Antonio, particularly the frontage road there. It is not a great place to
go to and from transit. I will agree with the one speaker who spoke about dodging out from there
onto San Antonio in the eastbound. It is dicey.
So while I am generally supportive of housing of the right types in the right places this is not a
project that I can support.
So that completes our initial round. I do have lights for a second round. I will remind people
that it is now 8:20. There is another item so if we want to go through briefly on second rounds
but it sounds to me as if the outcome here is somewhat certain given the comments that everyone
has made. Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineberg: I hesitated to bring this up before because when I was speaking I was
speaking in support of the motion. So now I am going to talk about the one item that gives me a
little bit of heartburn about the motion and this project.
We are charged with the responsibility of relying on the codes, the Comprehensive Plan, and a
body of regulation to make our decisions. At our last meeting, and again at this meeting tonight I
am observing guidelines and recommendations that Council has made during Study Sessions
about the identification and handling of potential sites for inclusion on our Housing Element sort
of mutating, and I choose that word carefully, but from directions for Staff for how to evaluate
sites into now those directions for how to evaluate sites for inclusion on the Housing Element are
now being used as policies to support last week and then this week deny approval of a project.
Whether I agree with the conclusion of that, I believe that it is dangerous for us to use
recommended analysis for future Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan Updates as policy
for project level decisions in the present. It is not the role of the Planning Commission nor Staff
to bring policy back dated on current projects until Council has voted and acted on it. I think we
are going down a bit of a dangerous path there. That was one item that in this project it gives me
heartburn.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair.
Chair Tuma: Yes.
Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify one thing. When the Council provided this direction and the
direction last week that was not a Study Session and it was voted on. That and this motion, this
one particularly was a unanimous vote. It was scheduled not to be a Study Session so they could
provide that specific direction. Now it is not adopted into a Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning
Ordinance or that kind of thing so there is some validity in what you say, but it was not a Study
Session where we were just assimilating various comments from the Council. It was actually put
up as a vote. One item that we would not intensify R-1 and R-2 zoned properties, and they voted
on that and then they went to the next one. So there was a series of about eight or ten items that
the Council took action on to vote as sort of the policy at this time.
Chair Tuma: Thanks for that clarification. Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I want to thank the members of the public for coming here this
evening. I know you have taken time from your busy schedules to come and speak as opposed to
this project. I also want to thank the applicant. I think that your proposal is very compelling,
very seductive in some ways, and I would love to be able to get behind it. I find myself agreeing
with the comments of my colleagues up here so I am going to vote in denying the project.
I do want to entertain one other little piece of comment, and it is really food for thought. We
were challenged by the public here to be creative. So I would like to share my creativity, which
is that I feel as though while the underlying zoning is R-1 there are portions of the site that
perhaps could entertain higher density, could go to the RM-15 zone, or could support the Village
Residential concept although it is not the majority of the site. What I see is there is an
opportunity since this is two sites that the A & D Protocol Transportation Inc. site might very
well be able to support RM-15 as a transition. An important component of this project is the
below market rate units and the Palo Alto Housing Corp really supports and tries to promote
smaller units, that they be rental units, and that perhaps that could act as the transition here
although it is not part of tonight’s recommendation for denial. So that is just something that I am
throwing out there in terms of something to think about and perhaps if this were to come back at
some point in the future maybe that is some way to think about it. But, as far as I am concerned I
am going to go with my colleagues in terms of denying this project tonight.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Tanaka.
Commissioner Tanaka: I just have a brief comment. I also support my fellow Commissioner on
the thought about whether this should have been kept as R-1. I also see that in Palo Alto there is
a tremendous need for daycare, let alone affordable daycare and preschools. As a parent myself I
know how difficult it is. One statistic is that in 2007 there were actually more people born in the
United States than were ever born before, even at the height of the baby boom. There are a lot of
young children and we do need that use. So I would like to see that use protected however this
project turns out in the future.
I think one of the speakers mentioned San Antonio not being idea for residential. I think that is
very true because it is not a great walkable area. It is a very busy street. So perhaps the current
use is actually the right use. So I am supporting the motion that is currently on the table. Also,
because it is the Council’s direction. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez and then I think we are ready to vote.
Commissioner Martinez: I would like to encourage the applicant to kind of push forward with
their proposal because I would like the Council to hear that gray area that just because we say we
want to preserve single-family that doesn’t mean that every parcel that is zoned single-family
right now makes sense that way. I think you make a great argument for why this is a mixed
residential zone. This is not California Avenue perhaps, but we want housing near commercial.
We want it near bus lines. We want to walk to transit, and we want it near parks and schools.
This is a project very much like that and I would like the Council to hear that we can have these
proclamations that state we want to preserve our single-family tradition, but on the other hand
there are these areas on the edges that don’t really make that much sense that way. Maybe as
Vice-Chair Lippert said there are some things to improve the Village Residential aspect of your
project, but the idea of smaller houses for an underserved population, BMR units, a non R-1 kind
of use here makes a lot of sense to me. I think I may be the one dissenting vote here. Thank
you.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Martinez opposed)
Chair Tuma: Okay with that the motion on the floor is to move Staff’s recommendation. If there
are no other additional comments, all those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed. (nay) The motion passes six to one, with Commissioner Martinez voting no.
Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www,cityofpaloalto.org
rlleN: 38SATTACHMENT E
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21 that the· will not have a . effect on the environment. ~
1125109
Request by Katia Kamangar of SummerHill Homes, applicant, on behalf of A&D Protocol Transportations Inc., property
owner, for a request for a Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Village Residential land use
designation and RM-15 zoning to a 2.65 acre developed site currently designated as Single Family Residential and zoned
R-J (8,000) but used as a preschool/daycare center. The developed project in concept would include the demolition of the
existing preschool/daycare center buildings and construction of 26 single family detached homes. The specific
development plans and 26-lot subdivision map may be subject to further environmental review following rezoning and
land use designation amendment. .
~===
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B.
866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimnm 20-day inspection period.
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited
and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral comments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Jason Nortz at (650) 617-3137
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
1 05/12/10
Special Meeting
May 12, 2010
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met with the Planning &
Transportation Commission on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04
p.m.
Present: Council Members Burt, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Planning & Transportation Commission Members Fineberg,
Garber, Keller, Lippert, Tanaka, Tuma
Absent: Council Members Espinosa, Yeh
Planning & Transportation Commission Member Martinez
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint City Council/Planning & Transportation Commission Review of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update.
A brief presentation was given by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, Curtis Williams who described the four main issues needing
further direction from the City Council prior to Staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) moving forward with preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These included: 1) Criteria for
preparation of the Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory; 2) 2020
growth projections; 3) The extent of revisions to the Vision, policies and
programs of the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Additional work items outside
the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment work plan scope. Each of the
P&TC Commissioners gave a short four minute presentation describing their
main concerns regarding the four key issues. After the Commissioners’
presentation’s, the Council asked individual Commissioner’s questions in
order to further understand their positions on the four topics. The discussion
primarily focused on the Housing Element and preparation of the Housing
2 05/12/2010
Sites Inventory. The criteria for site identification generated the most
discussion and included the following observations:
Explore mixed-use development in commercial areas
Explore increasing the 50 foot height restriction under limited
circumstances
Employ a “bottoms up” approach that defines the parameters for
accommodating housing
Explore increasing densities for existing multifamily residential sites
Locate high densities near transit stations
Explore use of Transfer of Development Rights for increasing housing
production
Encourage small, high density units
Mayor Burt left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
At the conclusion of the Study Session, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) members left the Dias.
Candice Gonzales, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, encouraged the completion
of the Housing Element prior to the project being out of compliance. The
Housing Corporation and Staff had been working together for more than a
year and requested Council to direct Staff on the final phase. She noted
being out of compliance limited the State funding available for affordable
housing and infrastructure.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, noted over the past fifteen years the City had
been eliminating retail establishments, hotels and restaurants in an effort to
create space for more housing. By eliminating the above mentioned
establishments the City was eliminating the walkable neighborhoods. He
requested to discontinue the loss of commercial space.
Mayor Burt returned to the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ACTION
2. City Council Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Housing Element Update.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to not
consider R-1, R-2, and RMD sites in the housing site criteria.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
3 05/12/2010
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
not allow rezoning of commercial to residential, but allow mixed use with no
decrease of retail sites throughout the city.
Council Member Scharff spoke about the importance in protecting the
economic viability of the City.
Council Member Price asked whether the Motion would preclude any serious
examination of the Fry’s Electronic site.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the
Fry’s site was not presently in play for the Housing Element since their lease
expired in 2013.
Chief Planning & Transportation Officer, Julie Caporgno stated the Fry’s site
was zoned for residential uses, although it was currently being used for
commercial.
Council Member Holman asked whether the intention of the Motion was not
to increase the building envelope but to consider a multitude of mixed uses
that would include housing.
Council Member Scharff stated his Motion had a broader direction in order to
not limit the Council on future decisions of larger mixed uses.
Council Member Holman stated larger projects were subject to a Planned
Community (PC) Zoning.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Council Member Holman requested to retain the fifty foot height limit on
buildings.
Council Member Price stated she supported the allowance of exploration of
exceptions within a quarter mile of transit. She stated there needed to be
flexibility within the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX
to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to consider
that the height is generally not to exceed 50 feet.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
4 05/12/2010
consider that the height is generally not to exceed fifty feet, and Staff is to
perhaps explore and return with exceptions within 1/4 mile of fixed rail
transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated there needed to be flexibility to look at the
fifty foot height limit in the area of the fixed rail stations, which was a
limited area.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on whether the exception was
within a quarter mile of transit or transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated transit stations.
Council Member Klein stated he did not support the Motion.
Council Member Scharff stated the intent of the Motion was for Staff to
explore the options and return to Council for a decision on which direction
would best suit the City.
Council Member Klein stated Staff came to Council for guidance and the
Motion was without guidance.
Mayor Burt clarified asking Staff and the Planning & Transportation
Commission (P&TC) to evaluate a process was guidance. He noted
historically the fifty foot height limit was of concern for the community.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the word “perhaps”, and change
“explore” to “evaluate”, and include the wording “limited exceptions” after
explore.
Council Member Holman stated she did not support the Motion. She stated
once an exception was allowed there tended to be increasing slow progress
towards extended exceptions. Compatibility was imperative moving forward.
Council Member Shepherd suggested expanding the study to include the
High Speed Rail (HSR).
Council Member Price stated she supported the Motion with the incorporated
language.
Council Member Klein stated if the Motion was adopted, the City was
undercutting the use of the bottom-up argument on the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers.
5 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt clarified there was no vote for altering the height limit, only to
allow the consideration of altering the limit. He stated it would be
inappropriate to not consider any height limitation in an effort to protect the
R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
Council Member Holman stated she wanted to avoid over building using the
allowed exception without consideration for the community goal.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-2 Holman, Klein no, Espinosa, Yeh
absent
Mayor Burt stated the focus needed to be modifying the language of which
portions of El Camino Real would be appropriate for housing sites.
Council Member Scharff stated he did not feel El Camino Real was the type
of transit route that made sense for housing. He clarified the bus transit
route was not adequate enough to be considered, although areas
incorporated with fixed rail would be sufficient. He asked Staff for
clarification on the variance between the quarter mile and the half mile
distance.
Mr. Williams stated the Comprehensive Plan currently had a designation of
Transit Oriented Residential which was 2,000 feet from a transit station. He
clarified the number was modified to fit the circumstances with California
Avenue Pedestrian Transportation Oriented Development (PTOD).
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
focus on sites within 1/2 mile of transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated transit oriented development was an
important direction.
Council Member Schmid stated the transit stations; fixed rail, Caltrain, and
possibly High Speed Rail (HSR), granted a higher level of opportunity for
housing development than that of El Camino Real.
Council Member Shepherd stated concern with whether the transit systems
would continue their present routes in the future. She suggested starting the
outreach process and connecting it to the developments making headway to
see if the City could reach an agreement with the developers to secure
transit pathways.
Council Member Price suggested the focus be on the area of El Camino Real
that was sufficiently served by transit and not the distance of a quarter or
half mile. She stated she did not support the Motion.
6 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt stated the current El Camino Real bus route system had the
heaviest usage in Santa Clara County.
Council Member Holman stated she supported the Motion.
Council Member Schmid stated the sites were not indiscriminant and there
were other criteria that were important for identifying sites that were
accessible as walkable options appropriate for the neighborhoods.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to have Staff and Planning & Transportation
Commission evaluate sites within ¼ mile of El Camino Real if well served by
transit or likely to be well served.
Council Member Scharff stated he had concerns with the El Camino Real bus
system. The purpose of having housing near transit systems was to
eliminate vehicle travel. He asked for clarification on where the El Camino
bus system went in order for him to determine the viability of building
housing near the bus system.
Mayor Burt stated there were projections by Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) on the trip ratio and destinations.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Schmid no, Espinosa, Yeh absent
Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 1) Should the City of Palo
Alto draft a Housing Element with a primary goal of providing adequate sites
to accommodate all of the City’s RHNA allocations, or 2) Should the City use
a “bottoms-up” approach to define what kind and amount of housing can
best be accommodated, consistent with the principles of locating housing in
areas close to support services and transit, regardless of whether it
ultimately complies with the RHNA allocation.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to use
a “bottoms-up” approach to define what kind and amount of housing can
best be accommodated.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 3) What criteria should be
used to identify sites to include in the housing inventory, e.g., housing type,
size, location, existing zoning proximity to transit and pedestrian-oriented
areas.
7 05/12/2010
Council Member Scharff stated in meeting the Housing Element goal from a
“bottom-up” perspective, areas that needed to be looked at were up zoning
parcels of existing areas such as apartments, going from RM-15 to RM-40.
Council Member Schmid stated identification of sites needed to include key
criteria of what the denser housing sites would have; accessibility of
neighbors, walkable options and compatible access to schools.
Mayor Burt stated an alternative to directing Staff was not to provide an
action for all of the recommendations. Council could provide Staff with a
sense of their proposed directions, and Staff could return to Council with
specific alternatives.
Council Member Price stated the potential for mixed-use developments
within a housing site should be considered.
Council Member Holman stated a smaller unit size had less impact on
schools. She was interested in whether there were community benefits in
the up zoning.
Mayor Burt stated if there were areas like California Avenue or downtown
with existing zoning he would be interested in the concept of overlay zones
and of smaller units with a higher number of units per acre; not necessarily
subsidized housing. He asked, with an added overlay, would it have a higher
Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Council Member Price asked for clarification on whether the comment was to
consider the implementation of overlays at different sites. She asked
whether Staff’s intention was in the size of the site or the size of the unit.
Mr. Williams stated the direction requested by Staff was for unit sizes not
parcel sizes.
Mayor Burt stated for Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and
RHNA a 600 square foot unit counted the same as a 6,000 square foot
home.
Council Member Scharff stated smaller units were practical and more feasible
for a community. He asked whether the concept of an overlay would be
counted towards the RHNA numbers.
Mr. Williams stated if the project was in an overlay without constrictions
then it could be counted towards the RHNA numbers.
8 05/12/2010
Ms. Caporgno stated if there were an overlay zone with options of the
underlying land use designation to be used and the project were in the
overlay then it would be necessary to implement the overlay.
Council Member Scharff stated Council’s responsibility was to ensure proper
zoning.
Ms. Caporgno clarified if the site was placed in the housing inventory; there
was an implied commitment that this site was going to be developed in a
certain manner.
Mayor Burt asked for clarification on placing a site in the housing inventory.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that
the criteria for sites should provide such things as access to services,
accessibility to neighbors, compatibility to neighborhood, close to jobs and
schools, accessible to transit.
Council Member Schmid stated with the creation of a list of criteria we would
be able to check-off the developments that had the most likelihood of being
built.
Mayor Burt asked whether all of the criteria mentioned would be required or
the list would be the pallet.
Council Member Schmid stated the list of criteria would be a pallet to choose
from.
Council Member Shepherd stated there needed to be a nexus between the
services and the developments. Specific criteria of what types of services
would be available was imperative.
Council Member Price asked whether the potential for mixed-use was still a
part of the discussion.
Mayor Burt stated the Motion on the floor was in regards to criteria for
development. The discussion of mixed-use was a part of a discussion
however not specific to the vote.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add the wording to the Motion: the potential
for mixed use development be a criteria for identifying sites.
9 05/12/2010
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording in the Motion “that the
criteria for sites” to “that among the primary criteria for sites.”
Mayor Burt asked whether the term incentives in the Motion was meant as a
preference for these sites intended for development.
Council Member Schmid stated the intent was one of guidance for there to
be a list of services available for the intended residents as an incentive of a
site that would be developed. Staff would be able to sort through the list of
primary criteria in an effort to assist in the choices of sites to develop.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct
Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that higher density,
small unit overlays be evaluated particularly in our two Transit Oriented
Districts.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Council Member Shepherd was concerned that there were 26 days left before
the Alternatives Analysis comments were due.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
XXXX to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to add to
the existing work program; 1) High Speed Rail land use scenarios, and 2)
University Avenue/Downtown Area Concept Plan.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, Council Member Schmid to
direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to: 1) identify
existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and
services, 2) explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from
the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford’s Community
Plan and General Use Permit, in conjunction with or following the
Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center
expansion, 3) explore potential housing inventory sites using LEED-ND
(LEED for Neighborhood Development) criteria as primary evaluation tool,
particularly near transit and services (El Camino Real, Stanford, and
10 05/12/2010
University Ave., and 4) emphasize smaller size units and minimize housing
impacts on schools and other public facilities.
Council Member Price asked for clarification on the LEED-ND criteria as it
related to the Housing Element.
Mr. Williams stated the LEED-ND criteria included virtually all of the
evaluations of whether the site and the surrounding area created walkability
that was accessible to public spaces and services.
Council Member Scharff stated he wanted to support the Motion although
there needed to be focus on senior housing.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to
include units for seniors.
Mayor Burt stated the presentation listed an emphasis on smaller units.
Units for seniors minimized the housing impacts on schools and other public
facilities.
Council Member Schmid supported the Amendment.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain.
Council Member Schmid asked what was being specifically extended within
the Housing Element and will there be further discussion at a later date.
Mr. Williams stated the Housing Element would be returning to Council for
discussion.
Council Member Schmid asked whether there would be site information
provided at the continued meeting.
Mayor Burt stated the continued meeting would be to discuss the items in
the CMR that were on the Council agenda for this evening.
Council Member Holman requested to add a topic for discussion to be heard
tonight under the Housing Element.
11 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt reiterated that the Housing Element was being continued for
further discussion for the items which had not yet been discussed at this
evenings meeting.
Council Member Shepherd asked when the discussion of the strategic
planning for the corridor study would be occurring.
Mayor Burt clarified the discussion was currently addressing the
Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element although the question asked
was on the Alternatives Analysis for the corridor study.
Council Member Scharff requested discussing the construction of affordable
units this evening. He felt the issue needed minimal further discussion and
could be resolved without waiting.
Council Member Price stated she understood the difference between the
Alternatives Analysis and corridor study in short-term and long-term. She
noted the item was time sensitive and there needed to be a clear
understanding of when there would be discussion.
Mayor Burt explained the opportunity to discuss all items not covered during
this evenings meeting would be at the upcoming special Council meeting
before the end of June.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1557)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1557)
Summary Title: Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update
Title: Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto continues to take a leadership role in representing our
community’s interests and positions on various rail related matters concerning high
speed rail (HSR) and our local rail service provided by Caltrain. There have been many
developments since our last update to the City Council in December of last year.
The City has sent several letters to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA),
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), our federal congressional leadership, and state elected officials. We also
continue to work cooperatively with regional agencies such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium (PCC), neighboring communities, and other parties with an interest in rail.
The City has, with the Town of Atherton and the City of Menlo Park, introduced fiscal
year (FY) 2012 legislation regarding HSR described more fully below. We have formally
asked the CHSRA to explain the apparent difference in estimated costs for the overall
rail system estimated at $43B but based on their own documentation it shows a total
cost of $66B. We have asked the CHSRA to re-do the existing ridership study. The
current ridership study has been called into question by the University of California
Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies (UCBITS). UCBITS is the State Legislature’s
official consultant on transportation matters. An accurate ridership study is critical as it
has significant impacts on what HSR system should be built and on the short and long-
term financial viability of HSR. Thus far, the CHSRA has been unresponsive to our
request and to other local agencies that have raised this issue.
In the near term, the central focus of the CHSRA is the construction of the initial HSR
segment to be built in California’s Central Valley. CHSRA staff has indicated their
resources are being allocated to the Central Valley to ensure they meet mandated FRA
and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) expenditure requirements. The
practical impact of this is that the publication of the San Francisco to San Jose segment
project level environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS)
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1557)
has been pushed back from December 2010 to the fall of 2012. There may be an
opportunity for the City of Palo Alto, in cooperation with other Peninsula cities, to
assemble a broader coalition of cities to advocate cooperatively for HSR options that are
acceptable to the Peninsula.
There has also been significant activity regarding Caltrain service. As the City Council is
aware, and the most recent 2011 Caltrain ridership numbers validate, Palo Alto
continues to have the 2nd highest ridership along the corridor. The City attended the
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) Caltrain meeting held early this calendar year at
Stanford University. The purpose of this meeting was to identify and develop short and
long-term solutions to the current operational and capital funding issues faced by
Caltrain. The City Council Rail Committee recently hosted Supervisor Liz Kniss who
serves on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) which oversees Caltrain
service. At this same meeting the Rail Committee heard presentations from Caltrain
technical staff on the current modernization plans for Caltrain.
In summary, the City is actively engaging in rail activities on a variety of fronts to
ensure the community’s interests are represented. Please read on for more details on
the current status of rail.
Discussion
I. Caltrain
Save Caltrain Town Hall Meeting
The City of Palo Alto has been working in cooperation with the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group (SVLG) and other Peninsula cities to get information out on the short and long-
term operational and capital issues associated with this rail provider. Further, the City
hosted a meeting on April 26th with the SVLG at the Palo Alto Sheraton Hotel to provide
information to the community on the current issues facing Caltrain service along the
corridor.
City Council Rail Committee
On April 13th the City Council Rail Committee hosted Santa Clara County Supervisor and
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) member Liz Kniss at their Committee
meeting for a discussion of issues facing Caltrain. At the meeting she provided a
presentation (attached) to the Rail Committee on the history of Caltrain while Caltrain
technical staff provided a presentation on electrification (attached). The PCJPB then
took action at their meeting April 21st in which the board approved measures that will
allow them to maintain the current 86 weekday train schedule through fiscal year (FY)
2012.
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1557)
The Rail Committee will meet again April 28th to again hear from Caltrain technical staff
on the 35% engineering design they have completed for the future proposed
electrification program to modernize Caltrain. Caltrain has also retained the services of
an engineer with expertise in Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) and Electric Multiple Unit
(EMU) train sets. The Rail Committee will receive a future presentation on these two
alternative types of train sets. This information will be provided to the City Council
when available.
Key Caltrain Issues
·Short and long-term financial viability and system modernization issues as
Caltrain has no dedicated funding source unlike other Bay Area transit systems.
Modernization includes electrifying the rail line, purchasing a new signaling
system (known as positive train control), and purchasing new train sets. In the
near term, Caltrain appears to have developed a short-term (i.e. one year)
solution to fund their operations through the end of FY 2012. This was
accomplished through a series of one-time funding solutions from both member
agencies and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), a $0.25 cent
base fare increase, and a $1.00 daily parking fee increase.
·Short and long term capital fund needs remain for modernization of the Caltrain
line. As the attached presentations indicate, Caltrain does not have full funding
to modernize their line (i.e. electrification). Thus far, and subject to change,
Caltrain has linked modernization to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the CHSRA. The goal of Caltrain has been to secure funding to modernize
Caltrain service from HSR funds in exchange for granting the CHSRA rights to
use the Caltrain right-of-way.
·Recent federal budgetary actions have reduced the total federal HSR budget
from $2.5B to $1B (with the possibility of that number going to zero). Thus,
funding to build HSR in California, other than what has been provided so far,
may not materialize, casting into doubt the ability of Caltrain to secure funds for
its own modernization
·Currently, Caltrain is in the process of completing, for the first time, a series of
independent feasibility studies to determine whether electrification and
modernization of the system can meet the future needs of this agency in serving
its customer base
II. HSR
Key CHSRA Issues
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1557)
·At the CHSRA board meeting on December 20th, the CHSRA allocated the
additional $616M in funds received from the FRA, from funds foregone by the
states of Ohio and Florida, to the Central Valley segment. Using FRA and
California Proposition 1A funds, the CHSRA has a total of $5.5B identified for
construction in the Central Valley. The recent allocation of additional FRA
funding enables the CHSRA to build up to 120 miles of the 520 project miles.
The segment to be built will start in the unincorporated community of Borden
and will extend to north of Bakersfield. The segment cost includes the
construction of tracks, two new stations (one in downtown Fresno and one east
of Hanford), construction of viaducts and rail bridges, site preparation, right-of-
way acquisition, and realignment of roadways, existing railways, and utilities. It
does not include the purchase of HSR trains, catenary wires, or a HSR
maintenance facility. Construction cannot commence until the project
environmental reviews are complete. These reviews are required to be
completed by September 2011, and construction is required to commence by
September 2012 in order to meet ARRA funding requirements. Recently, the
CHSRA applied for HSR funds foregone by the State of Florida. The CHSRA has
indicated they expect to hear in the next thirty days if former Florida HSR funds
will be awarded to California.
·In February 2011, CHSRA CEO van Ark asked staff to review and analyze a
phased HSR approach for the Peninsula. The concept is to potentially build more
limited infrastructure to support HSR operations between San Francisco and San
Jose. This would result in shared tracks for HSR and Caltrain. More information
on this plan is to be revealed at the May 5th CHSRA board meeting.
·The project level EIR/EIS is now projected to be released in the fall of 2012
(updated schedule attached).
·The planned issuance of a revised business plan was February 2011 but has
been delayed to the fall of 2011 with formal publication to occur in January 2012
FRA
The FRA has allocated:
·$715M to the CHSRA for HSR in October 2010. The CHSRA has decided to
allocate these funds to build HSR in the Central Valley.
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1557)
·$616M to the CHSRA for HSR in December 2010 from funds originally allocated
for HSR in Ohio and Wisconsin. The CHSRA has decided to allocate these funds
to build HSR in the Central Valley as well.
Current HSR Cost
The total estimated project cost is $42.6B. However, this total has been called into
question by both the City of Palo Alto and other regional groups and communities.
Based on data provided by Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD),
the HSR cost figure is actually closer to $66B. What is remarkable is the $66B figure is
based on data released by the CHSRA; however, the City never received a response to
our letter to the CHSRA asking them to confirm or deny the accuracy of this estimate.
Current HSR Funds
The total funding in place specifically for CHSRA expenditure on HSR is $12.181B
The breakdown of that funding is:
·$9B in Proposition 1A bond funds ($950M of the $9.95B approved must be spent
on local railroad improvements) -November 2008
·$1.85B in ARRA funds –January 2010
o Please note that at this time $400M of additional money was awarded for
San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal.
·$715M in additional federal funds –October 2010
·$616M in additional federal funds redirected from the Ohio and Wisconsin HSR
projects –December 2010
Legislative Activities
·Council supported the 2011 legislative initiatives and staff is working with Capitol
Advocates Inc. to execute the plan. The three bills co-sponsored by Atherton,
Menlo Park, and Palo Alto include AB 952, AB 953, and AB 1164. On Monday,
April 25 language that would have prevented the expenditure of Proposition 1A
funds on HSR until a new ridership study is completed was removed from AB 953
in committee. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) was
represented in the audience at this meeting. Attached are the bill summaries
and status.
·Rail Committee Chair Klein visited with federal legislative officials in March 2011
while in Washington DC. Key takeaways from this trip were that federal
legislators and their staff members were well aware of the discrepancies in cost
May 02, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1557)
projections for the project (CHSRA’s $43B figure vs. CARRD’s $66B figure), there
may be no new funding provided for HSR, and there may be attempts to reclaim
federal funding allocations already committed but not yet spent on HSR
Peer Review Audit Findings
In December 2010, a legislatively initiated HSR peer review group reviewed current
CHSRA activities and outlined the following issues, among several, with current CHSRA
operations:
·The absence of a “credible financial plan” has become a “critical concern.” A
major question facing the CHSRA is whether or not it is realistic to expect the
federal government to contribute $17-19B to this project.
·CHSRA officials need to be more transparent regarding estimates of passenger
demand, revenues, investment and operating costs, and project timing.
·There needs to be greater CHSRA recognition of potential resistance from private
rail operators.
·The CHSRA needs to be clear about how much of the 800-mile system will run at
ground level vs. below grade or on elevated tracks.
Program EIR Litigation
The City of Palo Alto joined Atherton and Menlo Park in litigation against the CHSRA
certification of the Program EIR. This litigation is still pending and based on current
available information it is expected the court will hear the case sometime in the summer
of 2011.
Property and Economic Value Analysis
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) has commenced work, and is near completion, of
their report regarding the economic, property, and related impacts of the Caltrain
modernization proposal and HSR.
Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon Statement
On Monday, April 18 at the Menlo Park Caltrain station Congresswoman Anna Eshoo,
Senator Joe Simitian, and Assemblymember Rich Gordon made a joint statement
outlining what HSR “done right” means and called for “a blended system that integrates
HSR with a 21st Century Caltrain.”
May 02, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1557)
HSR done right was defined using the following three criteria: one, the rejection of any
consideration of an aerial viaduct; two, the system should remain within the existing
Caltrain right-of-way; and three, the CHSRA should abandon its EIR
preparation/planning of a larger project over a 25 year time-frame and should focus on
a project of more limited scope.
The statement also included an explanation of how they thought this could be done and
included using some combination of the following: electrification, positive train control,
and new rolling sock. Please see the attached statement for more information.
San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership (SMCRCP) Meeting with van Ark
This recently formed group, comprised of elected officials from the communities of
Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City, and San Mateo, met in a non-public meeting with
CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark on April 20th to discuss issues surrounding the project in San
Francisco to San Jose segment. This group had sent a letter dated February 14, 2011
to van Ark stating their objectives (attached). Staff from the City of Palo Alto and other
cities attended this meeting and staff has prepared a summary outline of what occurred
(attached).
III. Additional Information
Rail Corridor Task Force (RCTF)
The RCTF has held eight meetings to date. The City of Palo Alto Planning Department
selected BMS Design Group of San Francisco to assist with the completion of a plan to
generate a community vision for land use, transportation, and urban design
opportunities along the Caltrain corridor
Attachments:
·Supervisor Kniss’s April 13 Rail Committee meeting presentation (PDF)
·Caltrain staff’s April 13 Rail Committee meeting presentation (PDF)
·CHSRA project schedule for the San Francisco to San Jose section (PDF)
·Legislative bill summaries and status for AB 952, AB 953, and AB 1164 (PDF)
·Eshoo Simitian Gordon HSR Done Right Statement dated April 18, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP letter to Roelof van Ark dated February 14, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP meeting with CHSRA CEO van Ark summary dated April 20, 2011 (PDF)
·SMCRCP CHSRA Power Point April 20, 2011 presentation dated April 20, 2011 (PDF)
May 02, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1557)
Prepared By:Richard Hackmann,
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
LIZ KNISS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, 5TH
DISTRICT
APRIL 13, 2011
Caltrain Briefing
Presentation Outline
History of Caltrain
Caltrain Governance
Ridership
Farebox Revenue
Passenger Survey
Caltrain Operating Deficit & Needs
Revised service proposal
Other possible funding sources
My position
History of Caltrain
1863 – passenger train service begun
San Francisco and San Jose Railroad Company
$600,000 of the original $2 million capital stock owned by S.F., S.M. & S.C. counties
1870 – acquired by firm eventually consolidated in Southern Pacific Railway (SP)
1904 – SP “double tracks” the corridor
1977 - SP petitioned PUC to abandon passenger service
The 3 Peninsula counties stepped in with a temporary plan to continue the service
Commuter tickets partially subsidized
State sponsorship of the “Peninsula Commute” begun in 1980
1980 – Caltrans contracted SP to provide passenger service
Operating subsidies shared by 3 counties
Caltrans responsible for station acquisitions & other capital improvements
1985 - Significant improvements made
SP trains replaced with new locomotives and rolling stock
Stations upgraded, shuttle busses added
Operation rebranded as Caltrain
1987 – Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) formed
1991 – JPB purchased right of way from SP
Provision that SP retained right to operate freight service
Service extended to Gilroy
1992 - SP replaced by Amtrak as contract operator
2005 – Baby Bullet service launched
Caltrain Governance
Board of Directors represent the three counties
City and County of San Francisco
Jose Cisneros, appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco
Sean Elsbernd (Chair), appointed by San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Nathaniel Ford, appointed by the Municipal Transportation Agency
San Mateo County Transit District:
Omar Ahmad (Vice Chair), appointed by City Selection Committee
Arthur Lloyd, appointed by San Mateo County Transit District
Adrienne Tissier, appointed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority
Ash Kalra, appointed by VTA
Liz Kniss, appointed by VTA
Ken Yeager, appointed by VTA
Executive Director
Michael Scanlon, appointed by Board
Also serves as General Manager of SamTrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Operations Contractor - Amtrak
Ridership Summary
Ridership exceeds previous high seen in 2009,
even in current economic climate and with service
reduction
Midday service remains steady even with
reduction of four trains, riders redistributed to
shoulder peak
All three counties saw comparable ridership
increases
Onboard bike ridership increased with expanded
onboard capacity
Weekend ridership growth shows demand for the
full complement of Caltrain services
Average Weekday Ridership:
2004 – 2011
36,77839,122
33,841
36,993
32,031
28,393
25,550
41,442
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Ri
d
e
r
s
96 trains
96 trains
98 trains
96 trains
86 trains
76 trains
90 trains
86 trains
Farebox Revenue per Operating Dollar
Caltrain farebox recovery is 2nd highest in Area
Caltrain receives $.48 in fares per dollar of operational cost
BART is $.61 per dollar
Caltrain operations are:
2x more self sustaining than MUNI
3x more self-sustaining than SamTrans
4x more self-sustaining than VTA
Passenger Survey
Main reasons for riding Caltrain:
Avoid traffic
Save money
Don’t have/want a car
Annual passenger $ saving using Caltrain
(vs. private automobile): SJ to SF
$8,954.16 (computed by Caltrain staff)
If Caltrain didn’t exist, it would take the equivalent of 2-3 lanes on 101 to carry the extra rush hour traffic
Caltrain Operating Deficit and Needs
Caltrain is only Bay Area transit system without permanent, dedicated source of funding
Caltrain has had funding shortfalls for several yearsEach year, budget balanced with short term solutions
The JPB partnership - SamTrans, VTA, Muni
SamTrans is the managing partner
If partner doesn’t fund their total share of the (balanced) budget,then the other two partners may reduce their share.
This can result in large budget deficit (e.g., $30 million this year)
Caltrain staff working to find solutions with
Regional, state, federal transit partners,
Friends of Caltrain and Silicon Valley Leadership Group (8 public meetings)
VTA has proposed solutions for funding gaps
March 2011 board meeting directed GM Burns to work urgently with partner GMs
Caltrain Operating Deficit …
Caltrain staff recently reported that some one time funds have been found. Staff proposal with revised funding:
Operate 76 trains (decrease from current 86 trains, and prior 96 trains)
Eliminate Baby Bullet service but run (slower) express trains instead
Close selected stations on a semi-permanent basis (and others on weekends)
Planned April 7 JPB decision deferred 2 weeks
April 21 special meeting in San Carlos
10 am, SamTrans auditorium.
Board directed Caltrain staff to continue search for funds
Additional $3.5 million + needed to maintain current 86 trains
Decision unanimous to continue decision for 2 weeks.
Revised Service Proposal:
Weekend Service
Stations with suspended weekend service (FY 2012)
22nd Street
Bayshore
South San Francisco
Broadway
Hayward Park
Belmont
San Carlos
Atherton
California Avenue
San Antonio
Lawrence
Tamien
Caltrain Operating Deficit …
Other potential sources of funding
Increase “preventive maintenance” money from MTC
Increase VTA “right of way” purchase payments to SamTrans($7.2 M offered by VTA, $2M accepted by SamTrans)
Redeploy or “borrow” Dumbarton Rail Project funds(Project unlikely soon - cost & environmental inhibitors)
Redeploy or “borrow” Caltrain electrification funds.
My position
Caltrain is vital transportation system w/more riders than ever (Riding is a Habit)
Use one time money to keep system running in short term
Long term solution is critical to system’s continued operation
Urgently seek fair and proper long term funding solutions
Further reductions risk crippling the system and impacting the greater region
Death spiral – ridership drops service reduced more Caltrain dies
“Ring the Bay with Rail” goal is jeopardized
FYI
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is currently hosting public meetings
Focus on long-term funding solutions for Caltrain
1
Caltrain Electrification Project Update
Prepared for: Palo Alto Rail Committee
Prepared by: JPB
April 13, 2011
2
Committee Requested Topics
• Electrification Project
• EMU vs. DMU
•HSR and Caltrain MOU
2
3
Caltrain Modernization Program
• Key Components
PTC/CBOSS
Electrification Project
Service Expansion
• Guiding Principles
Address Structural Deficit
Provide More Service
Improve the Environment
4
Project Definition
3
5
Electrification Project
• Distance: 51 miles (SF to Tamien)
• Service: 6 trains / peak hour /
direction
• Key Structure Elements
– Traction Power Facilities
– Overhead Contact System
• Electric Powered Vehicles
6
Ridership Forecast
• Projected Demand
– Base Year (2007) 33,420
– 2035 No Project 65,000
– 2035 Project 71,000
• Key Modeling Inputs
– 2005 ABAG population and job projections
– MTC RTP projects
– Caltrain service at all stations
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
4
7
Capital Cost
$ 1,225Total Cost
$ 440 Vehicle Replacement
$ 785 Electrification Infrastructure
CostProject Elements
($ in Millions, Year of Expenditure)
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
8
Capital Funding
• Status
– Committed: $269 million
– Expected: $352 million
– Needed: $604 million
• Funding Plan
– Federal and State HSR Funding
– PPP
– Financing
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
5
9
O/M Revenue & Expense
$229M$87MExpense
$206M$47MRevenue
(23)(39)Net
11498# of Trains
2035 (Electric)2008 (Diesel)
Source: Caltrain Electrification EA/FEIR, July 2009
10
Positive Environmental Impacts
• Reduced congestion
• Reduced energy consumption by 64%
• Reduced air pollutants by 90%
• Reduced noise and vibration by 81%
6
11
Negative Enviromental Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Category Impact Mitigation
Aesthetics Visual clutter Landscaping &
Screening
Biological Resources Tree trimming Vegetation
Management Plan
Cultural Resources Potential of archeological
remains
Burial and Programmatic
Agreements
Hazardous Waste
and Materials
Encountering existing
hazardous waste and
materials
Focused Phase II,
Worker Health and
Safety Plan
Hydrology /
Floodplain
Groundwater impacted by
foundations
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
Construction
(temporary impacts)
Noise, vibration, emissions,
traffic impacts during
construction
Best Management
Practice Plan
Transportation /
Traffic
Increased parking at
stations
Caltrain Access Program
12
Project Status
7
13
• 1999 Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan
•2001 MTC RTP
• 2004 Caltrain Strategic Plan
• 2008 Preliminary Engineering
• 2009 FRA Waiver
• 2009 Federal Environmental Clearance
Key Milestones
14
• FEIR Certification – JPB Board Consideration
– April 2010
– Timeout to address local concerns
• Discussions with Community Coalition on HSR
– Guiding Principles
– Tiered Environmental Clearance
• JPB Board certification in summer 2011?
Electrification EIR Certification
8
15
• Outdated: 2015 Revenue Service
• Duration by Phase
Final Design: 18 months
Construction: 3 years
Testing: 1 year
Public Project Schedule
16
Caltrain / HSR Coordination
9
17
•PTC/CBOSS
RFP
Access HSR Funding
• Electrification Project
Input to HSR Design
Input to HSR EIS/EIR Analysis
Project Coordination
18
• Strategic plans & ridership forecast
• HSR EIS/EIR
Alternatives
Design review
• Supplemental efforts
Caltrain system and station area impact analysis
Station area planning
Local economic analysis / value capture
1 – 2 Year Planning Focus
10
19
•SF to SJ
EIS/EIR public release Fall 2012
Completion Summer 2013
• SJ to Merced
EIS/EIR public release Early 2012
Completion Fall 2012
• Construction / Revenue Service TBD
HSR Revised Schedule
20
Discussion
Summary of
San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership Meeting
April 20, 2011
San Mateo City Hall
Meeting Purpose
Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
was present to provide a presentation on the San Francisco to San Jose Peninsula High Speed
Rail Project. Below is a summary of similarities and differences between Congresswoman
Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assembly member Gordon’s press statement on high speed rail
dated April 18th and the presentation given by CEO van Ark April 20th in San Mateo:
Eshoo CHSRA CEO
Simitian van Ark
Gordon
Policy Position 4/18/2011 4/20/2011
Abandon EIR planning for larger project Yes No
over 25‐year time horizon to 2035
Eliminate 4‐track option Yes No
Focus project only on predominantly 2‐
track alignment Yes No
Rejection of Aerial Viaduct option Yes No
System should remain on Caltrain ROW Yes Yes
Meeting format
The meeting was scheduled from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It was “closed to the public” and
meeting participation was primarily allowed only for representatives of the four San Mateo Rail
Corridor Partnership cities (i.e., Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and San Mateo). These
representatives included assigned council members, city managers, public works directors in the
cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco and other San
Mateo County local agencies on the rail corridor and guests. The meeting was not a public
meeting under the Brown Act. The officials from these agencies sat at a table in the front of the
room. The meeting was presided by the Mayor of San Mateo. Other public agencies including
Palo Alto sat in chairs in the audience section of the room. Others present at the meeting
included Mike Scanlon, CEO of Caltrain, Marian Lee, Executive Officer, Planning and
Development, Samtrans, councilmember Sepi Richardson from Brisbane and a staff person from
the City of Menlo Park.
Presentation
Mr. Van Ark gave a PowerPoint presentation from 3:05 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting chair
then opened the meeting to questions from representatives of the San Mateo County Rail
Corridor Partnership cities.
Questions asked of Mr. van Ark by the Partnership agencies included:
Q. What documentation did CHSRA have that said a covered trench could only be
covered for 800’ then had to be opened up?
R. “Do not know, but will get back to you.”
Q. Is it your understanding that you cannot run high speed rail trains on same line as
freight trains?
R. CHSRA had been granted a waiver to enable both systems to run on the peninsula
with freight trains limited to running at times different than HSR and Caltrain trains
Q. What did CEO van Ark think about recent press accounts given by Congresswoman
Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assemblymember Gordon and other legislators
regarding HSR on the peninsula?
R. Mr. van Ark responded he thought many of the concepts outlined had been covered
by the presentation given today including phased implementation and use of the
existing Caltrain ROW.
The City of Palo Alto had a number of questions we were unable to ask due to time limitations
and the answers to these questions were not addressed in the presentation by Mr. van Ark:
Would you be willing to modify the project description of the San Francisco to San Jose
EIR to limit the project to a two to three‐track system?
What is the status of the financing plan especially in light of fact that CHSRA’s own
documents show a project cost at $66B well in excess of the $43B advertized estimates?
What is the status of off‐shore company investment in High Speed Rail?
Would you support the “blended” project identified by Congresswoman Eshoo, Senator
Simitian and Assemblyman Gordon?
What role does commuter rail service, (i.e. Caltrain); have in the long‐term success of
statewide High Speed Rail system? Would improved commuter rail systems in Los
Angeles and the Bay Area with connections to a High Speed Rail spine through the
Central Valley be a long‐term model for success in light of the fact that federal funds
have already been committed to the Central Valley?
The Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon proposal contains a number of elements: elimination of a
viaduct or other elevated structure, limit the project to the Caltrain right‐of‐way,
elimination of the concept of a four‐track phased project scope during the next 25 years,
upgraded Caltrain service, and seamless transitions between HSR and Caltrain in San
Jose. Do you agree with these aspects of this proposal and if so which ones are most
feasible in your opinion?
Many on the Peninsula have supported “High Speed Rail Done Right”, meaning a system
that minimizes local impacts on our communities including below grade designs where
appropriate. In your opinion, is “High Speed Rail Done Right” feasible financially?
What is the status of the business plan? Will you adhere to the October 2011 deadline
set by the legislature?
What commitments will you make for cities and the public to have substantive input and
coordination as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) for the San Francisco to San Jose project?
SF-SJ SECTION
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
APPROACH
presented to the
San Mateo County Rail
Corridor Partnership
by
Roelof van Ark
April 20, 2011
SF-SJ SECTION
2
4thand KingThe HSR Authority appreciates the
approach taken by the San Mateo
County Rail Corridor Partnership to
discuss rail issues with the Authority.
The HSRA continues to work with
Caltrain and the PRP to further the
joint development of an integrated
transportation system on the
Peninsula, which will benefit both
agencies and the communities the
systems serve.
ALIGNMENT DESIGN OPTIONS –A, B, B1
3
SAN MATEO COUNTY PARTNER’S LETTER
( D A T E D F E B 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 )
4
4th and King
Five Issues
1.Alternatives to Open Trench
Alignment: Covered Trench,
Intermittent Covering, Bored
Tunnel.
2.Phased Implementation
3.2-Track System
4.Land Use and Economic Impacts
5.Use of Right of Way Post
Construction.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
•The Authority remain consistent with the following
laws:
Voter-approved Proposition 1A
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
•The Authority must consider the full build-out of the
system in the year 2035 (the time horizon used by all
CA transportation authorities).
5
ALTERNATIVES ALIGNMENT DESIGNS
–New design option (B2) will
investigate partial covered
trench [800’ max sections] in
city centers on the corridor.
Will work with cities to
determine locations.
–Designed for lightweight uses
such as passenger malls or
parking.
–Heavy structures over trench
would require additional piling
and structures by developers
(to be further investigated)
Partially Covered Trench Alignment Sections:
ALTERNATIVES ALIGNMENT DESIGNS
–Bored tunnels considered primarily where no alternatives
exist (costs) like mountains, to eliminate high-rise
building destruction, etc.
–Taking HST exclusively into tunnel will not offer grade
separation for Caltrain and freight, nor an upgrade for
Caltrain infrastructure.
–Existing diesel freight trains would (a) require additional
ventilation if operated in tunnels, (b) require further
precautions when the freight trains transport HAZMAT
materials (which is the case on the Peninsula)
–Transitions for tunnels are difficult to place as they
require wider footprints for portals and long approaches
(more intrusive).
Bored Tunnel Alignment Sections:
•Central Valley Selected for
Receipt of ARRA funding and
early construction between
2012 and 2017
•Opportunity for Refined and
more Detailed Analysis and
increased collaboration on SF-
SJ Section
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
Starting in the Central Valley
•Section where California’s HST system will
travel 220-mph maximum operating speed
for long periods of time (enabling the two-
hour, 40-minute requirement for trip time
between LA and San Francisco)
•Initial track in the Central Valley will serve
as testing and proving ground for new
high-speed train technology in the United
States
•Less expensive land and less complex
engineering in the Valley
•Near-term job creation benefits
(conservative estimate of 100,000 jobs –
direct and indirect –over life of the first
$5.5 billion in construction)
The high-speed rail backbone
FUTURE EXPANSION
Getting to Passenger Service
From
Initial
Construction
Section [ICS]
To
Initial Operable
Section [IOS]
To
Completion of
Phase 1
To
Phase 2
ICS
IOS
PH1PH2
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Many Peninsula communities have requested:
Evaluation of phased service implementation
Integration of HST and Caltrain services
Coordination of HST and Caltrain ridership and capacity
projections into long-term planning
Consideration of community specific plans and
development projects
HSR is most willing to use the additional time to
ensure that these issues are addressed, and to work
together with Caltrain to ensure mutual benefits.
11
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
CHSRA has announced “Phased Implementation”
•Incremental implementation of HST service along
corridor
•Opportunity for greater collaboration with local and
regional agencies, and the communities
•Time to select ultimate build alternative subject to the
ability to accommodate phased implementation
Goal
•Provide HST “One-Seat Rides” from San Francisco in the
most cost effective manner and to enhance ridership of
the “Initial Operable Section”
12
INITIAL OPERATING PROJECT (IOP)
Peninsula IOP
•To define minimum infrastructure required to support an initial
level of High-Speed Train service
•Must be feasible as part of the full build DEIR/EIS
•Assumes sharing existing Caltrain tracks/ROW
•Must maintain Caltrain services during phased implementation
•Must consider the freight rail requirements on the Peninsula
•Would require Caltrain electrification, PTC, new generation
rolling stock (matching dimensions/platforms)
•Does not necessarily lead to grade separation advantages
13
2 TRACKS OR MORE?
14
Line Capacity (HSR and Caltrain)•Relative Operating Speeds•Stopping Patterns•Limited Passing Tracks
Overlapping Peak Hours
Infrastructure/Rolling Stock•Platform Heights•Potential wider body HSR vs Narrow Caltrain Vehicles
Crossings Impact Service•Rail line speed (FRA Guidelines: 80-110mph –Install additional
automated devices; 111-125mph –Fail-safe vehicle detection
devices and full barriers)•Roadway traffic congestion•Reliability
CONSTRUCTION STAGING EXAMPLE:
TRENCH
15
Caltrain today Electrified Electrified Shoofly Remove tracks
Final ConfigurationFirst Trench Transfer & 2nd Trench
CONSTRUCTION STAGING EXAMPLE:
AERIAL (1 BRIDGE)
16
SF-SJ DEIR/EIS TIMELINE
17
Publication of SF-SJ Section Draft EIR/EIS
extended to late summer/early fall of 2012.
RAIL CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP ISSUES
#3-5
•Two-Track Alternative:This has been covered
in the “Phased Implementation” discussion.
•Land Use and Economic Impacts: Adopted land-use
plans on rail corridor (Millbrae Station Area Plan, San Mateo
Downtown Plan etc.) will be considered in EIR/EIS. Close
relationship between Authority, Caltrain and cities
encouraged to ensure best results. Economic issue needs
further discussions between HSRA and Caltrain.
•Use of Rail Right of Way Post Construction: HSR would
like to ensure maximum benefits to local Authorities to
benefit from aerial rights as well as areas under aerial
structures. The Authority and Caltrain will need to discuss
what is possible (ROW belongs to Caltrain). The FRA is also
looking at the issue.
RAIL CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP ISSUES
Q & A
LOOKING AHEAD
Contact Info
–California High-Speed Rail Authority
925 L St., Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-324-1541
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
–Visit Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and Posterous
–Terry Lightfoot, Public Involvement Manager
tlightfoot@hntb.com / (415) 963-6718