HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-21 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ~
SERVICES
DATE:APRIL 21, 1998 CMR:191:98
SUBJECT:PROPOSED GENERAL FUND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
FINANCING AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
REPORT IN BRIEF
The three infrastructure modules reviewed with the Finance Committee last year informed
the Council of a $32.5 million infrastructure backlog and $62.2 million in ongoing
infrastructure needs from 1999-2009. Given the age and quantity of the City’s physical
assets, the City’s General Fund capital budget is underfunded. Based on the existence of a
backlog and comparative data from other cities discussed in CMR: 158:98, staff‘recommends
a significantly enhanced infrastructure effort over the next ten years." This report contains
a financing plan for $95 million in infrastructure work over ten years.
CMR:191:98 Page 1 of17
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council approval of
the basic elementsof the General Fund (GF) infrastructure prioritization methodology and
financing plan displayed below, and direct staff to return to the Committee with a more
refined implementation plan in Fall 1998. Staff specifically requests that the Committee
recommend that the City Council:
o
o
Pfioritize existing facilities over new facilities for purposes of infrastructurefunding.
Staff recommends that new or enhanced infrastructure, such as a public safety
building or an expanded main library, and major new traffic and transportation
projects be funded from specific new revenue sources such as general obligation
bonds, grants, new or increased taxes, and assessment or special tax districts.
Approve staff’s methodology for prioritizing General Fund infrastructure work.
Conceptually approve a ten-year; $95 million Infrastructure Funding Plan to include:
Allocating 75 percent of annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) spending
to infrastructure, to total $4.6 million per year, or $46 million over ten years.
This level represents current infrastructure spending levels in the GF and
Street Improvement Fund (SIF). This level of funding leaves around $1.6
¯ million in the CIP budget for non-infrastructure items, such as technology,
lighting improvements, public art, remodeling, and other miscellaneous
projects.
b)
c)
Augmenting current CIP spending by $1.0 million per year, or $10 million
over ten years. It is anticipated that funding would come from budget savings
that would revert to the Infrastructure Reserve at year end.
Utilizing the GF Infrastructure Reserve, which is expected to total around
$13.0 million by July 1, 1999.
d)Directing half of expected revenue growth as a result of hotel expansion and
development projects to infrastructure work. Half of this revenue is
anticipated to total $.95 million per year, or $9.5 million over ten years.
e)Seeking voter approval to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from
10 to 13 percent, representing approximately $2.1 million annually, or $21
million over ten years.
Development of an infrastructure implementation plan, including establishing a time
line for voter approval of a TOT increase and a detailed infrastructure staffing
CMR:191:98 Page 2 of 17
augmentation plan. With the Committee’s and Council’s approval, staffproposes to
return to the Committee in about six months with a more detailed time line and
implementation plan.
BACKGROUND
During past years, Council has raised concerns about the condition of the City’s aging
infrastructure and the level of funding devoted to its rehabilitation and maintenance. Staff
has written this report and CMR:158:98 ("Results of Survey of Other Cities’ Capital
Spending", April 6, 1998) in order to address the following questions:
Does the City have a backlog of infrastructure work (backlog is defined as
infrastructure that is in poor condition)?
¯What is the cost of eliminating the backlog?
Is the current level of capital funding adequate to maintain the City’s
infrastructure in good condition?
Is a long-term infrastructure plan or system in place to identify and fund future
needs?
Moving ahead with rehabilitating the City’s existing infrastructure is critical. While
preserving existing facilities may not be as dramatic or visible as constructing a new
building, repairing the City’s existing streets, sidewalks, . and buildings is central to safety,
economic viability, and maintenance of current service levels enjoyed by the community.
Studies (e.g. Levels of Service studies conducted in 1991 and 1992) and anecdotal
information indicate that Palo Alto is a service rich city. In addition to providing a high level
ofproactive police and fire services, the City provides a broad range of social, cultural and
recreational services that include a $1.0 million human services budget, a Children’s and
Community Theatre, six libraries, three community centers and a Junior Museum and Zoo.
As CMR: 158:98 confirms, "Palo Alto spends $1,392 per capita on its operating budget, about
65 percent more than the average of the cities surveyed." In terms of capital spending,
however, Palo Alto spends less as a percentage of its Overall budget than the average of other
cities surveyed. When combined with the existence of a $32.5 million infrastructure
backlog, this information indicates that Palo Alto is not adequately funding preservation of
its capital assets. Additional resources or a reallocation of existing resources to enhance the
capital budget are necessary. An important conclusion of CMR: 158:98 is that "ifPalo Alto
were to spend the average amount on capital improvements that the surveyed cities spend as
a percentage of the total budget, its capital budget would increase by over $3.0 million per
year, to about $7.9 million."
CMR:191:98 Page 3 of 17
Stressing infrastructure’s importance, Council has designated it a priority since 1996-97.
To address Council’s concern, an interdepartmental Infrastructure Task Force was formed
to report on the condition of the City’s existing infrastructure. An Infrastructure Work Plan
(CMR:377:96) was submitted to the Finance Committee (Committee) and Planning
Commission (Commission) in Fall 1996.
Recognizing the immense task of assessing the City’s infrastructure needs, staff proposed
delivering four phased reports or "modules" to the Committee and the Commission for
review. Three of these reports: Buildings and Facilities (CMR:466:96), Traffic and
Transportation (CMR:298:97), and Parks and Open Space (CMR:409:97) have been
presented. Infrastructure work in these modules was further divided into elements such as
streets and sidewalks within the Traffic and Transportation module. (See Attachment 1 for
an outline of Infrastructure Modules and Elements.) For each element, extensive information
on existing inventory, ongoing maintenance needs, capital rehabilitation needs, a method for
priofitizing infrastructure work, and potential funding options was provided.
A fourth module on Bridges and Parking Lots will be presented in Summer 1998. Since the
City’s bridges and parking lots are in satisfactory condition, staff has proceeded with
prioritizing and presenting a plan for work within the first three modules. Work emerging
from the fourth module, after Committee and Commission review, will be incorporated into
the infrastructure plan, likely as part of the next ten year’s effort.
Costs identified to rehabilitate existing infrastructure are significant. Investments to
eliminate the backlog are estimated at $32.5 million, while ongoing funding to rehabilitate
existing facilities over the next ten years is estimated at $62.2 million. Costs for existing
infrastructure over the next ten years therefore total $94.6 million. All costs in this report are
expressed in 1997-98 dollars (See Attachment 2 for detail on costs by element):
MODULE
I Buildings & Facilities
II Traffic&Transportation
III Parks & Open Space
IV Bridges & Parking Lots
COSTS OVER
EXISTING 10 YEARS
BACKLOG 1999-2009
$ 6,419,000 $27,418,000
16,595,000 26,418,000
9,444,000 8,350,000
TBD TBD
TOTALS
$33,837,000
43,013,000
17,794,000
TBD
Total $32,458,000 $62,186,000 $94,644,000
CMR:191:98 Page 4 of 17
New Traffic and Transportation work, as well as new buildings and expanded facilities, are
not included in the table above, but are discussed below. Personnel costs for an enhanced
infrastructure program or any maintenance costs needed to maintain it are not included in the
table. Staff will provide staffing costs after receiving approval from the Committee and
Council to proceed with the fmancing plan and a more refmed infrastructure implementation
plan.
Given the magnitude of the City’s infrastructure needs, work within each infrastructure
element was prioritized by staff and a consultant. In prioritizing work, both general criteria
and criteria specifically applicable to each element were applied. General criteria included:
health and safety issues; legal and regulatory requirements; replacement or rehabilitation to
avoid costly system breakdowns; and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria
pertinent to individual elements were also used. In prioritizing building work, for example,
factors such as the importance of a building to community needs (e.g. fire stations rank
higher than a lawn bowling facility); the criticality of building components (e.g. roof ranks
higher than internal painting); and number of people affected by component failure were
used.
In each infrastructure module, fmancing options to enhance the City’s current infrastructure
are discussed. Although the GF CIP has been augmented steadily since 1993-94, funding for
infrastructureprojects has not kept pace with needs. Supplemental funding mechanisms
outlined by staff (See CMRs: 466:96; 298:97; and 409:97) included: creation of an
Infrastructure Reserve; issuing Certificates of Participation; issuing general obligation bonds;
and implementing special assessment or special tax districts for sidewalk, street or parks and
open space work (See Attachment 3 for description of potential financing vehicles).
Council responded to the funding challenge by establishing an Infrastructure Reserve in
1997-98. This Reserve had a balance of $8.2 million as of 6/30/97, and will grow to $11.0
million with the adoption of the Midyear Financial Budget Amendment Ordinance, and to
about $13.0 million by the end of 1998-99. A reserve of $13.0 million is sufficient to
eliminate nearly 40 percent of the infrastructure backlog, but additional funding is necessary
to eradicate the remaining backlog of $19.5 million and satisfy ongoing capital needs of
$62.2 million over the next ten years. To address these remaining costs over ten years ($81.7
million), the annual amount dedicated to infrastructure in the CIP (including the GF and SIF)
would still have to be raised from the current $4.6 million to $8.2 million.
DISCUSSION
Staff has based its recommendations on four key assumptions:
CMR:191:98 Page 5 of 17
The City of Palo Alto is insutTlciently funding its capital assets. The development of
a $32.5 million infrastructure backlog and comparative city data on capital budgets
(CMR: 158:98) demonstrate a clear need. to augment capital spending.
The City of Palo Alto is a service rich City. Staff is not aware of any other city Palo
Alto’s size having, for example: a Junior Museum and Zoo; eight fire stations; a
Community and Children’s Theatre; six libraries; three community centers; foothills
and baylands open space; and a $1.1 million human services budget that complements
a $1.0 million CDBG budget.
Unless there is some consensus beforehand to phase out aged facilities altogether,
staff believes it should be a higher priority to rehabilitate existing, viable facilities
before building new buildings or expanding facilities. The high service levels
enjoyed today are, in large part, due to the varied and numerous facilities that support
those services. Staff believes it is not prudent to expand facilities if existing facilities
are not adequately funded, because this practice exacerbates the problem by adding
to a massive facility infrastructure that is beyond the means of the City to maintain
over time.
If existing infrastructure should take a higher priority over expanding into new
infrastructure, it follows that new facilities only be funded if they are supported by
new sources of funding such as voter-approved general obligation bonds, tax
increases, grants, or sale of surplus property.
Building on these assumptions, staff has provided information and recommendations on the
following: prioritizing existing infrastructure work; allocating available funding to the
various infrastructure elements; available financing sources and levels; and a preliminary
implementation and staffing plan. Committee feedback is requested on staff’s recommended
priorities and funding sources. After receiving direction from the Committee and Council,
staff will return with a more refmed plan for staffing, financing, and the type of work to be
completed.
Prioritizing Existing Infrastructure Needs
While a consultant worked with City departments to prioritize projects within a given
module, no overall prioritization was done. In a series of recent meetings, an interdepart-
mental team attempted to prioritize existing infrastructure work across modules. This
involved the formidable task of comparing and ranking dissimilar types of work, such as
street repairs to re-roofing a building to replacing an irrigation system. Stafftackled this.task
by developing and utilizing the following two criteria, in descending order of importance:
1.Critical health and safety and legal requirements;
CMR:191:98 Page 6 of 17
2.Capital replacement to avoid system breakdowns and maintenance of:
a)facilities that provide essential services (e.g. fire station);
b)facilities that provide less essential services (e.g. rehabilitating a Cubberley
wing).
Within each of these priority ranking, staff then tried to order projects based on number of
users - high, medium and low public use.
In applying these criteria, several problems arose. Facilities providing essential services,
such as fire stations and the Municipal Service Center, ranked consistently higher, absorbing
a significantly higher percentage of resources than parks, community centers, streets and
sidewalks. Moreover, in applying the criteria, issues arose over how work was already
priodtized within each infrastructure element. For example, repair of a small, neighborhood
street, originally identified as the highest priority among streets because of its condition,
received a lower rating compared to Homer Avenue or Page Mill Road, based on essential
services and the number of users criteria. After further refinement of the ranking criteria and
discussion, the team concluded that the original priodtizations presented within each module
should prevail. These original pdoritizations were modified somewhat by City departments,
with backlogged work receiving the highest priority (See Attachment 4 for prioritization of
work within each element).
There are two atypical areas in the originalinfrastructure reports that merit discussion. These
include City medians and weed abatement in the Foothills. A backlog of $3.2 million in
median work was originally identified by staff. Since maintenance of medians was not a
priority during times of drought, numerous City medians have very poor or non-functioning
irrigation systems or consist of hard scape, such as pebbles and rocks. Rehabilitation and
replanting of these medians can be viewed as an increase in service levels or as a lower
priority in terms of criticality of funding. Staff has roughly estimated the costs of
rehabilitating such medians at $1.1 million and excluded these costs from the prioritization.
Included in the prioritization, however, is $2.1 million in costs for upgrading medians that
have softscape and viable irrigation systems.
Another area that has been excluded from infrastructure costs cited in this report is weeding
in the City’s open spaces. Non-native weeds have proliferated in open space areas and
require substantial maintenance efforts if native vegetation is to return and survive. Not
fitting within the traditional def’mition of infrastructure, Open Space staff asserted that, along
with trails, piers and bridges, plants, trees and native weeds were the infrastructure of open
areas. Based on this premise, weed abatement was given a high priority within the original
Parks and Open Space report. Since overall infrastructure costs are considerable, since
weeds are not within the traditional definition of infrastructure, and since preserving native
CMR:191:98 Page 7 of 17
vegetation does not carry the same criticality as does preserving safe and usable streets and
parks, staff has excluded $1.13 million in weeding expenses from the prioritization. Staff
recommends that ongoing Open Space weed abatement costs be prioritized for funding
within the operating budget.
Allocation of Fundin~
Because of the difficulties of comparing work across modules and the recommendation to
maintain original priofitizations, a broad guideline for allocating future infrastructure funding
is recommended. This formula allocates available fimding and balances infrastructure areas
having extensive needs with those that have a smaller, critical backlog with considerable
needs in future years. To simplify, the allocation formula is weighted based on each
module’s share of the total backlog. The formula is an average of:
1)the proportion of each element’s existing backlog to the total existing backlog; and
2)the proportion of each element’s total needs over 10 years to the total costs over the
ten-year period.
Attachment 5 shows the weighted percentages for each element. Once Council approves an
overall infrastructure financing level, funding levels would be preliminarily allocated to each
infrastructure element according to this basic formula. It should be emphasized, however,
that this initial allocation would only be a starting point. Department managers for each
infrastructure element would then propose the projects having the highest priority and which
make economic and logical sense in terms of scheduling work as part of the annual CIP
process. For example, staff might recommend combining work in one building that has a
relatively lower priority with work in the same building that has a high priority. For instance,
if replacing a roof at MSC Building B is a high priority, and if it is cost-effective and less
disruptive also to replace Building B air handlers which may have a lower priority compared
to work needed in another building, then both the roof and air handler work could be done
together. Staff therefore envisions the basic prioritization to be a general set of guidelines
for staffto follow annually, and not a rigid blueprint. As needs and priorities change, or if
funding availability changes, the program could be adjusted accordingly.
Financing Sources and Levels
The principal challenge ahead is how to fund the City’s existing infrastructure needs and how
to generate resources for new capital efforts. For Committee consideration, staff has
developed a series of scenarios or steps to fund $95 million in existing needs. These steps
do not rely on deb~ financing and focus on available and reasonably projected revenue
growth. Not relying on debt for existing infrastructure serves several purposes. Pay-as-you-
go funding allows staff to implement a ten-year infrastructure plan that minimizes uneven
staffing needs, creates a more manageable workload, and avoids debt issuance costs.
CMR:191:98 Page 8 of 17
The following graph depicts recommended funding needs and sources over the next ten
years.
(Expressed in Millions)
TOTAL NEEDS OVER 10 YEARS = $100 MILLION
$9.5
$46.0
$13.0
$10.0 $21.5
Current CIP Infrastructure Funding [] Revenue Growth
I~llnfrastructure Reserve Iil Increased Taxes
Augmented CIP Funding
As a very preliminary placeholder, staff has assumed and included, for now, incremental
staffing costs of $.5 million per year, resulting in a total of $100 million in infrastructure
needs over ten years. A more refined analysis of staffing will be presented in the
implementation phase (see discussion below).
CMR:191:98 Page 9 of 17
To reach this goal, staff recommends the following:
O Allocate 75 percent of the existing annual CIP, or $4.6 million per year ($46 million
over ten years), to infrastructure projects. The proposed CIP for 1998-99 identifies
$6.2 million in funding for parks and opens space, infrastructure, technology, and
miscellaneous projects. By dedicating $4.6 million to existing infrastructure work,
approximately $1.6 million would be left for non-infrastructure or emergency
projects.
Utilize the City’s new Infrastructure Reserve which started the year at $8.2 million,
and has grown to $11.0 million as of midyear 1997-98. It is expected to grow to at
least $13.0 million by June 30, 1999, to coincide with tb~e first year of the ten-year
augmented infrastructure effort. According to reserve guidelines, these one-time
funds are to be used primarily for eliminating the infrastructure backlog and
completing capital work.
O Augment current CIP spending by $1.0 million per year. Based on a conservative
estimate of year-end budget savings, staff anticipates that the Infrastructure Reserve
will increase by about $1.0 million per year during the period 1999-2009. Over the
last ten years, the General Fund had an average of $3.0 million net operating surplus.
That number declined in years of recession, but went higher in years of economic
expansion. Staff believes a $1.0 million projection of year-end surplus is conservative
and prudent, resulting in $10 million over ten years towards infrastructure projects.
o Staff projects that as a result of the expansion of the Holiday Inn, renovation of the
Hyatt Cabana, (resulting in additional rooms and TOT revenues), and incremental
property and sales taxes stemming from development proposals already approved by
Council, the City will realize additional revenues of approximately $1.9 million per
year. By using only half of this expected revenue growth, the City could add
approximately $.95 million to the annual CIP budget, or $9.5 million over the next ten
years. The other half of this specific revenue growth would still be available to fund
or to address other financial needs in the coming years.
O This leaves $21.5 million of the $100 million required still unfunded. To close the
funding gap, a tax increase is proposed. Staff recommends that the TOT be raised
from 10 percent to 13 percent. Each 1 percent increase in the TOT would generate
about $.7 million in additional revenue. A 3 percent increase would generate $2.15
million per year, or $21.5 million over ten years, and would add $2.55 to the price of
an $85 hotel room.
CMR:191:98 Page 10 of 17
The following table summarizes the steps by which a $10 million annual CIP, or $100
million infrastructure program can be achieved.
Annual Amount
$4.6 million annual CIP
$1.3 million from Infrastructure Reserve
$1.0 million from augmented CIP funding
$.95 million from revenue growth
$2.15 million from TOT increase
Totals = $10.0 million
Amount over 10 Years
$46.0 million
$13.0 million
$10.0 million
$9.5 million
21.5 million
$100.0 million
This final piece of the funding strategy requires additional discussion. The TOT has not been
increased since 1983. Although TOT rates hover around 10 percent in most cities, Carmel
charges 10.5 percent, the cities of Santa Monica and Oakland charge 11 percent, and San
Francisco charges 14 percent. The demand for rooms in Palo Alto is very strong. This is
demonstrated by Palo Alto’s high occupancy rates, despite steadily increasing room rates
over the past two years. The burden of a TOT increase would not impact Palo Alto citizens
and is not expected to adversely affect hotel business. The overall hotel occupancy rate in
Palo Alto has hovered at between 78 and 86 percent for the last several years.
Passing a TOT increase will require a two-thirds vote if all funds are dedicated for a specific
purpose, like infrastructure. Staff recommends, instead, that the funds from the TOT
increase, if passed, be used to fund infrastructure, plus replace the $1.2 million’in property
tax funds the State shifted away from Palo Alto to the school district in the early 1990’s. Palo
Alto has been able to weather this revenue shift only because of the expanding economy, but
will need to replace those funds to compensate for the next economic downturn. Otherwise,
the host of services that have been added in the past several years after the State shift may
be in jeopardy. These services include: downtown police patrol, maintenance of school
district playing fields, enhanced tree care and maintenance, a second paramedic unit, and
increased traffic safety studies. By not dedicating a TOT increase to a specific General Fund
service, a simple majority vote would be required to approve the proposed increase.
In lieu of raising the TOT, the City could raise additional infrastructure funds through:
Extending the Utility Users Tax (UUT) to interstate and cellular phone calls,
raising approximately $.6 million per year, or $6 million over ten years:
CMR:191:98 Page 11 of17
Increasing the-UUT from 5 to 6 percent, raising around $1.0 million per year
or $10 million over ten years.
Changes to the UUT would require voter approval and would impact both households
and businesses in Palo Alto.
Seeking voter approval to include the more visible or likely to be popular
rehabilitation projects, such as parks and fire stations, within any general
obligation bonds that might be issued for new projects. (A general obligation
bond would result in an annual charge, or lien, on Palo Altans’ property tax
bills over 20 to 30 years.)
Other options to meet essential infrastrucrare needs include:
Maintaining the GF budget at current service levels, with no new programs or
service levels added. All revenue growth could be allocated to infrastructure.
Reducing the GF budget and reallocate resources to infrastructure.
Reducing overall funding for infrastructure by scaling back non-traditional
projects such as open space work, medians and bike paths.
Funding the infrastructure program over a longer time frame than ten years.
While staff is not recommending them, these additional options do provide alternative
funding scenarios for Committee consideration. As the Committee weighs the options, staff
suggests not extending the infrastructure plan over a longer time frame than ten years. By
extending requirements over a longer time frame, a new backlog of work will emerge.
New Infrastructure Needs
During its infrastructure review, Council requested a broader picture of the City’s
infrastructure needs to include new buildings and facilities. Council members requested this
information to make more informed decisions on resource allocations and which projects to
implement. CMR:412:97 provided a list of new or expanded buildings and facilities
identified by staffwith a brief justification for building them (See Attachment 6). The costs
of these new facilities are not included in this report.
In the Traffic and Transportation module, staff identified nearly $47.2 million in desired new
programs, services and facilities over the next ten years. These included traffic calming,
major intersection improvements, interrnodal transportation, and bike and pedestrian path
work (See Attachment 7). Other new traffic needs, such as programs emerging from the
school safety study, were raised by the Committee. The Transportation Division is in the
CMR:191:98 Page 12 of 17
process of reviewing a consultant’s recommendations on school safety issues and will be
reporting to the Policy and Services Committee in June. This and other identified programs
will add substantial costs to the $47.2 million in projects prioritized in Module 3.
Along with the costs of new traffic and building programs, other new infrastructure needs
and costs are not included in the infrastructure prioritizafion. These include: expansion of
PAUSD athletic field work beyond the current commitments to three schools; the cost of
replacing building electrical systems to accommodate new computers and networking
systems; and Cubberley Master Plan enhancements. That is, while Cubberley re-roofing
work is included in the prioritization, such things as the Master Plan recommendations for
an outdoor stage and acoustical shell near Building M are not.
Staff recommends that new projects be fmanced through specific new revenue sources, such
as general obligation bonds, tax increases, or special assessment districts. Staff makes this
recommendation for several reasons:
It is prudent to take care of existing facilities before investing in new facilities.
To defer funding for existing infrastructure in order to pay for new facilities
or new services is to further perpetuate an infrastructure backlog.
As staff and the Council found during the recession in 1991-92 in several
public outreach meetings on appropriate levels of service, there is no
consensus among Palo Altans about reducing existing service levels in order
to fund new needs or services. On the contrary, it is likely that the demand for
.more services and facilities will continue to grow. Council would be able to
assess the relative importance to the public of new facilities and new services
by explicitly asking citizens to vote on whether they are willing to pay for
new facilities and services. If they are not, then that is extremely useful
information to the Council in making priorities.
One of the conclusions in CMR: 158:98 is that compared to other cities, the City of Palo Alto
does not have much debt. For the Palo Alto taxpayer, however, there is a higher level of total
taxpayer debt outstanding compared to other cities. This results from recent school district
bonds, as well as existing City, County and special district and assessment debt. While
recognizing that Palo Altans have a higher debt burden, staff believes that, given the relative
wealth of the community and its appreciation for high service levels, additional debt
financing by the City should be considered for potential new facilities.
In addition to general obligation bonds, other funding options for new facilities could include
new or increased taxes or assessments:
1)Increase or extend the UUT tax as discussed above.
CMR:191:98 Page 13 of 17
2)Create a special assessment or special tax district for neighborhood specific
improvements, such as streets and sidewalks (such as Menlo Park), medians or traffic
calming. By using funds from a street, or sidewalk assessment district, other existing
General Fund revenues would be freed for new facility projects.
Preliminary_ Implementation and Staffing Plan
While a ten-year infrastructure plan will require fewer new staff resources than a ramped up
two- to three-year plan, additional staffing will be required. It is interesting to note that in
the General Fund Organizational Review by Hughes Heiss and Associates, it was concluded
that Public Works Engineering was staffed at the appropriate level to accommodate a $3.8
million 1993-94 infrastructure budget. Since that time, the infrastructure budget has
increased to $4.6 million and CIP carryover encumbrances and reappropriations (due to
backlogged projects) have risen by 65 percent. Although the proposed 1998-99 CIP Budget
is focused on reducing backlogged projects, existing staffing cannot accommodate an
augmented infrastructure effort.
As a ~ preliminary placeholder, staff has included $.5 million as an estimate of staffing
costs for financial planning purposes only. Once staff has more feedback from the
Committee on financing and priorities, staff will return with more detail on appropriate
staffing levels, mix and cost. Staffing needs must be evaluated carefully, but will likely
include a combination of engineers, design technicians, inspectors/surveyors, contract
administrators and buyers. Space needs will also have to be addressed, and the City
Manager’s Office has already begun a space needs assessment for existing space shortages
that should be addressed over the next one to five years.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Pending direction from the Committee, this report is recommending a $100 million
infrastructure program over the years 1999-2009. This includes a ~ preliminary estimate
of $5 million in staffing needs over ten years. A more specific staffmg plan will be presented
for Committee review in Fall 1998 after funding levels and priorities are more clearly
determined. The Recommendation section of this report identifies the suggested sources of
funding for the ten-year infrastructure program and for any new infrastructure programs.
The fundamental decision in moving ahead with the infrastructure plan is that the City will
have fewer resources to devote to new services, higher service levels, and perhaps new
facilities. In addition, the City faces potential threats to existing revenue sources. Equity
transfers to the GF, for example, may come under political pressure as a result of energy
deregulation. It is unknown how the future economic base of Palo Alto could grow or
decline.
CMR:191:98 Page 14 of 17
As budget challenges arise, Council may have to revisit funding levels for City capital and
operating programs. Staff’s recommendation, which folds infrastructure funding in over ten
years, allows staff and the Council adequate time to make budget changes in the future. In
addition, by minimizing debt funding, staff’s recommendation does not add a large fixed cost
to the budget (debt service), again allowing for future flexibility. At this point in time,
however, evidence indicates that a preponderance of City resources have been devoted to
services rather than the infrastructure upon which those services are based. By dedicating
existing and new resources to infrastructure, the City will remedy the unstated policy of
emphasizing services over infrastructure and address essential needs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
¯This report is consistent with Council’s established infrastructure priority, and with the 1998-
99 Budget Guidelines. One of the most important factors in selecting infrastructure projects
is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Under staff’s recommendation, projects will
be screened over ten years to both conform and support the goals and policies of the new
Comprehensive Plan. Likewise, the new Comprehensive Plan supports the most primary.
assumption in this report: the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. As Policy C-23 states,
the City should "Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance.
(The City should also) avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure." In addition, Goal
C-4 declares, "The City is committed to investment in its infrastructure and public facilities,
as resources are available. This commitment requires a strong emphasis on maintenance,
rehabilitation, and modernization."
TIME LINE
The enhanced infrastructure effort and financing will be folded into the 1999-2001 Budget.
After receiving feedback from the Committee, staffwill return with a more refined ten-year
infrastructure implementation and staffing plan in fall 1998. Staff preliminarily envisions
augmenting staffing in two phases. The first phase, needed even if a tax increase is not
endorsed by Council or ultimately passed by voters, would be implemented through a Budget
Amendment Ordinance in about December 1998. A second phase, assuming a higher
funding level allowed by a tax increase,would be incorporated in the 1999-2001 Budget.
Should Council recommend moving forward with tax increases, they could be proposed as
early as the June 1999 ballot.
The following timeline depicts the infrastructure implementation process.
CMR:191:98 Page 15 of 17
Preliminary approval from Finance Committee April 1998
Present more detailed implementation plan to Finance
Committee, including staffing analysis Fall 1998
Budget Amendment Ordinance for
Phase I staffing December 1998
Any tax increase to be proposed on ballot June 1999
Phase I staffing in place by July 1999
Phase I Augmented Infrastructure Plan begins July 1999
Phase II staffing in 1999-2000 Budget July 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report on infrastructure planning and prioritization represents preliminary policy
assessment and direction to staff. It does not require California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review as they are
further developed; however, it should be noted that most replacement or reconstruction of
existing facilities will be Categorically Exempt. New projects (which are not included in this
recommendation, such as a new public safety building) will require further review.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1.
Attachment 2.
Attachment 3.
Attachment 4.
Attachment 5.
Attachment 6.
Attachment 7.
Infrastructure Plan Modules and Elements
Infrastructure Costs: Backlog and Work Over Next 10 Years
Infrastructure Financial Options
Infrastructure Priorities and Work Accomplished by Funding Level
Allocation of Resources to Infrastructure Elements
New and Expanded Building/Facilities Needs
Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Work
CMR:19t:98 Page 16 of 17
PREPARED BY:Joseph Saccio, Senior Financial Analyst
Jim Steele, Manager, Investments and Debt
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Melis]a Cavallo-
Acting Director
Administrative Services
Emil~ HairPin
Assistant City Manager
CC: Planning Commission
CMR:191:98 Page 17 of 17
ATTACHMENT 1
Infrastructure Plan Modules and Elements
Module I:
Module II:
Module III:
Module IV:
Buildings and Facilities
Element:Buildings and Facilities
Traffic and Transportation
Elements:Streets
Sidewalks
Medians, Islands and Planters
Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Parks and Open Spaces
Elements:Parks
Open Spaces
Perimeter Landscaping for Buildings
School Sites
Bridges and Parking Lots (Expect to Complete and Deliver to Council in
Summer, 1998)
ATTACHMENT 2
-$000-
Infrastructure Costs: Existing Backlog and Ongoing Work Over Next 10 Years
Existing
Backlog
1997-99
Ongoing Work
Next 10 years
1999-2009
Total
Buildings and Facilities
Traffic and Transportation
Sidewalks
Streets
Bikes and Pedestrian Facilities
Medians, Islands, Planters
Subtotal Traffic and Transol~
Parks and Open Space
Parks
Open Space
School Sites
Perimeter Landscape @ Bldgs
~Subtotal Parks and Open Space
Total
6,419
9,040
6,599
956
.:16,595
6,979
1,103
270
1,093
.32;458
27,418
9,000
15,000
1,298
1,120
.... 26,418
4,139
3,337
115
759
8,350
62,t86
33,837
18,040
21,599.
1,298
2,076
11,208
4,440
384
1,852
i7,794
ATTACHMENT 3
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCIAL OPTIONS
General Obligation
Bonds
Bonds used to finance
acquisition, construction
or completions of the real
property portion of any
municipal improvement
including transportation
projects, street and
sidewalk work, medians,
and bikeways and
pedestrian facilities.
Bonds must be approved
in a general election by
2/3 of Citywide voters
voting and are payable
from ad valorem property
taxes. Represents a new
source of revenue to the
Certificates of
Participation/Asset
Transfers
Allows City to raise tax-
exempt funds by leasing a
public facility to a
nonprofit corporation the
City establishes. The
financing is not
technically considered
"debt" but rather a long-
term leasing arrangement
that is not subject to State
constitutional
requirements concerning
long-term debt. Proceeds
from the issuance of
COP’s can be used for
improvements to the
leased asset such as a
building or for other,
Infrastructure
Reserve
Council approved the
Infrastructure Reserve in
1997-98. The Reserve
depends on the health of
the General Fund for
future contributions.
Reserve funds can be
used for General Fund
capital projects that
cannot be accommodated
in the ongoing capital
budget process .or for
projects that may not be
appropriate for debt
financing. Funds from
the Infrastructure Reserve
can be used for all types
of infrastructure projects.
Special Assesment
Bonds
Any capital project that
provides quantifiable
benefits to a specific
group of property owners
and not general benefits
to all property owners.
Under proposition 218,
will require a majority
approval of affected
property owners voting
with their votes weighted
according to the amount
of assessment. Provides
additional revenue’to the
City, resulting from a lien
on the property tax bills
of affected property
owners.
City. Improvements must
be of a single purpose for
each measure.
unrelated City assets such
as streets.
Seismic improvements to
the Civic Center were
financed through the use
of COP’s, and the
upcoming Golf Course
improvements will be
financed through COP’s.
Issuing COP’s requires a
majority vote by Council.
COP’s would have to be
repaid within existing
General Fund budget
constraints.
Although used for similar
types of projects as
special assessments, a
"Mello-Roos Special Tax
District" has the
advantage of not
requiring a calculation of
proportionate benefit.
The district may be
legally created to finance
projects for which it is
difficult to qUantify
specific benefits. If
approved by 2/3 of the
property owners in the
district, a special tax is
then charged on the
property tax bill to pay
debt service on
improvements.
Explanation and Legend for Following Attachment 4s
Explanation: Attachment 4 shows the prioritization of work for each Infrastructure element.
Staff will use these sheets to determine future capitfil projects depending on funding levels,
backlogged work, and the’ most efficient and effective combination of work identified in each
element.
Legend: In addition to prioritizing work, Attachment 4 illustrates how much infrastructure work
can be accomplished annually given the allocation methodology described in CMR: 191:98 and
staff’s recommended, incremental financing steps. The Roman numeral accompanied by a
specific shading depicts the type and amount of work that can be completed with each step.
Annual Amount Amount over 10 Years
Totals
I = $4.60 million annual CIP $46.0 million
II = $1.30 million from Infrastructure Reserve $13.0 million
III = $1.00 million from augmented CIP Funding $10.0 million
IV = $ .95 million from New. Revenue Growth $ 9.5 million
V = $2.15 million from TOT increase $21.5 million
= $10.0 million $100.0 million
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
BUILDING
MSCA
General
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
MSCC
MSCB
MSCB
MSCB
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
, Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
MSCC
MSCC
MSCC
MSCC
MSCB
MSCB
MSCB
Jr. Museum
GolfPro/Hof
GolfPro/Hof
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 4
Fire 4
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
SYSTEM
Generators
Facilities Update
Roofing - Lower Roof
Generators
Roofing - Tower
Roofing
Overhead Motors
Roofing
,Hoists
,Air handlers - Garage
UPS
, Replace Elevator
, Sump Sewage Pumps
Boiler
,Chiller and Cooling Tower
Exhaust Fans
Water Heaters
iFuel Oil Storage
Air Handlers-Building
Circulating Pumps
Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
Fire Alarm Upgrade
Building Management System
Boilers and Pumps
:Space Heaters at Shops
Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
Air Handlers
Boilers and Pumps
’Air Handling Units
Air Compressors
Roofing
,Roofing .
iDryrot Beam Repair
Fume Exhaust
Door Operators
Roofing
Fume Exhaust
Roofing
Backlog Cumulative Years 1-10 Cumulative
Costs Backlog Costs Years 1 - 10
Costs Costs
60 60
0 60
125 185
42 227
0 227
0 227
0 227
230 457
0 4571
0 457
364
25
100
1397
1,397~
1 422
1 522
1 522:
1,522
1,652 ~
1,7os-i
1,708
1,708
55O
30
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
60
II
0
0
20
6
0
20
0
1,007,
1,037
1,137,
1,137
1,137,,
1,137i
1 137~
1 137
1 137
1 677’
1 677,
1 677
1 677:
1 6771
1 677,
1 677
1 677
1 6771
I 737:
1 737:
1 737~
1 737’
1 757
1 763
1 763
1 783
I 783
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES P~ORITIES
BUILDING
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 8
Civic Center
Stern Theat
MSCA
General
APC
APC
MSCB
Mitchell Lib
.Mitch Park
Main Lib
Jr. Museum
Jr. Museum
GolfPro/Hof
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 4
Fire 4
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 8
Downtn Lib
Cult Center
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
SYSTEM
Door Operators
Fume Exhaust
Roofing
Fume Exhaust
Door Operators
Door Operators
Fume Exhaust
Roofing
Roofing
Telephone PBX System
Roofing
Roofing
Electrical System Evaluation
GeneratOr
Roofing
Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Electrical Service/Panels!Lighting
Mechanical
Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
Mechanical
Underground fuel oil tank
Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
Mechanical
Underground fuel oil tank
Mechanical
Electrical Service/Panels!Lighting
Underground fuel oil tank
Electrical Service/Panels!Lighting
Mechanical units
Electrical
Roofing
Roofing
Backlo~g Cumulative Years 1-10
Costs Backlog Costs
3O
6O
100
112
109
43
36
Costs
1,708
!,708
1,708
1,738
-1;738 i
1,738
1,798
¯1,798
¯ 1 ;798
1,798
1;798
1,898
1,898
1,898
1,898
2,010
2,:1,19
2,119
2,119
2,119
2,119
2,162
2,162
,,2,198
2,198
0
20
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
1000
18
III
o
o
24
266
0
o
o
109
182
86
0
0
o
o
0
0
-o
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
Cumulative
Years 1 - 10
Costs
1 783
1 803
1 803
1 803
1 803
1 803
1 803
1 803
1 803
2,803
2,821
2,821
2,821
2,821
2,845
3,111
3,111.
3,111
3,111
3,220
3,402.
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488!
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488.
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,488
*ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
BUILDING
Child Theat
Terman Lib
Stem Theat
Stem Theat
Stem Theat
Stem Cent
MSCA
, APC
APC
Teen Center
MSCC
MSCB
Mitchell Lib
Mitchell Lib
Mitch Park
Mitch Park
Main Lib
Main Lib
GolfPro/Hof
Golf Maint
Foothill Int
Foothill Int
Downtn Lib
Downtn Lib
Cub Theater
CubS-W
Cub MP
Cub J - L
Cub I
Cub Gym
Cub A - H
Cub - Pavil
College Ter
Civic Center
Child Theat
Child Theat
Child Lib
Ventura
SYSTEM
Roofing
Roofing
Mechanical
Dressing
Electrical
Roofing
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Roofing
Toilets
Toilets
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Exterior Stair and Landing
Siding/Roofing
Roofing
,Interiors
Mechanical
Electrical
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
iRoofing
’Roofing
Exterior
Mechanical
Electrical
Roofing
Roofing
Backlog Cumulative
Costs Backlog
Costs
30 2,767
63 2,830
95 2,925
2,925
40 2,965
40 3,005
221 3,226
3,226
90 3,316
104 3,420
505 3,925
304 4,229
50 4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279-
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
4,279
300 4,579
4,579
4,579
42 4,621
4,621
Years 1-10
Costs
V
0
0
0
25
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
148
0
0
0
o
o
60
58
51
0
106
100
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
72
0
0
236
o
o
Cumulative
Years 1 - 10
Costs
3,488
3,488
3,488
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513,
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,661
3,661
3,661
3,661
3,661 ’
3,661
3,721
3,779
3,830
3,830
3,936,
4,036:
4,036
4,036
4,036
4,036
4,036
4,036
4,036
4,108
4,108
4,108
4,344
4,344
4,344
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
BUILDING
Terman # 30
Terman Lib
Terman Lib
Stem Cent
Stem Cent
Fire 8
Cub - Pavil
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Civic Center
Teen Center
Stem Theat
MSCC
MSCB
MSCA
GolfPro/Hof
Foothill Int
Foothill Int
Fire 5
Fire ~
Fire 4
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 8
Cult Center
Cult Center
Cubberly.
Cub Theater
Cub Theater
Cub S - W
CubS-W
Cub MP
Cub MP
SYSTEM
Roofing
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Equipment
Paint
Paint Interiors
Garage
Ceiling
Flooring
Electrical
Seats
Exterior Paint
Exterior Paint
’Electrical Service/Panels/Lighting
:Mechanical
Mechanical
Electrical
Toilet
Toilet
Kitchen
Toilets
:Kitchen
Kitchen
Toilets
Kitchen
Toilets
Mechanical
’Mechanical
.Electrical
iFire Alarm System - Campus Wide
!Radiant Heat
~Electrical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Radiant Heat
Backlog Years 1 - 10
Costs Costs
103
18
82
83
55
77
30
10
20
25
10
20
40
250
250
Cumulative
Backlog
Costs
4,621
4,621
4,621
4,621
4,724
4,724
4,724
4,742
4,742
4,742
4,824
4,824
4,824
4,907
4,962
5,039
5,039
5,039
5,039
5,069
5,079
5,079
5,079
5,099
5,124
5,134
5,154
5,194
5,194 ’
5,444
5,694:
5,694.
5,694.
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
42
108
0
0
0
0
44
72
130
90
303
0
150
0
0
0
0
65
51
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
177
142
5
5
5
6
232 6
278 6
138 6
165 6
Cumulative
Years 1-10
Costs
4,386
4,494.
4,494.
4,494
4,494
4,494
4,538
4,610’
4,740
4,830
5,133
5,133
5,283
5,283,
5,283
5,283
5,2831
5,3481
5,399
5,399
5,399
5,419
5,419,,
5,419
5 ’,419’~
5,419
5 419
5,419
5,419
5419
,419
719
896
038
270
548
686
851
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
BUILDING
Cub J - L
Cub J - L
Cub I
Cub I
Cub Gym
Cub Gym
Cub A - H
Cub A - H
Cub - Pavil
Cub - Pavil
College Ter
College Ter
Child Lib
Child Lib
Ventura
Ventura
Terman # 30
Terman # 30
MSCC
MSCC
MSCC
MSCB
MSCB
MSCB
MSCB
MSCA
Child Theat
APC
Restrooms
Jr. Museum
GolfPro/Hof
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 4
Fire 3
Fire 2
Fire 1
Fire 8
SYSTEM
Electrical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Electrical
Electrical
Radiant Heat
Electrical
Mechanical
Radiant Heat
Electrical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Electrical
Mechanical
Mechanical
~Eleetrical
Ceilings
Floors
Interior Paint
Floors
Interior Paint
Ceilings
Elevator
Toilets
Seats
Toilets
Roofing
Exterior
Exterior
,Kitchen
Exterior Paint
Exterior Paint
Exterior Paint
Exterior Paint
Exterior Paint
Exterior
Ba~Years 1-10
Costs.Costs
60.
75
37
47
10o
20
2O
2O
8
20
Cumulative
Backlog
Costs
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,694
5,754
5,829
5,866
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
5,913
6,013
6,033
6,033
6,053
6,053
6,053
6,053
6,073
6,073
6,073
6,081
6,101
6,101
6,101
302
362
136
204
281
338
415
498
264
176
0
0
0
0
276
276
54
7O
15
68
15
25
22
5
0,
0
5O
0
0’
21
44
0
12
8
0
0’
39
0
Cumulative
Years 1-10
Costs
7,153
7,515
7,651
7,855
8,136
8,474
8,889
9,387
9,651
9,827’
9,827
9,827
9 827
9 827
10 103
10 379
10 433’
10 503~
10518
10 586
10 601
10 626
10 648
10 653,
10 653 :
10 653,
10 703
10 703
1 O, 703
10 724,
10 768,
10 7681
10 780 ~
10,788
10,788
10 788
10 827
10 827
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
BUILDING
Cult Center
Bayland Int
Bayland Ath
Lawn Bowl
Stem Theat
Sr. Center
MSCA
Jr. Museum
Jr. Museum
Harbor Mast
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 5
Fire 4
Fire 4
Fire 4
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 3
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 2
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 1
Fire 8
Cub Theater
Cub MP
Cub I
Cub Gym
Cub - Pavil
APC
Webster Gar
Webster Gar
Thompson
Stem Theat
Stem Theat
SYSTEM
Toilets
Roofing
Roofing
Roofing
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior Paint
Interior Paint
Floors
Major Facility Upgrade
Ceilings
Floors
Interior Paint
Ceilings
Floors
Interior Paint
,Interior Paint
Ceilings
Floors
Floors
Ceilings
Interior Paint
,Interior Paint
Elevator
Ceilings
Floors
Interior
Floors
Floors
Elevator
Floors
Floors
Exterior
~Lighting
Elevator
Paint
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Backlog Years 1 - 10
Costs Costs
25
40
3
2
4
7
9
100
6
25
56
70
Cumul~ive
Backlog
Costs
6,101
6,101
6,126
6,126
6,126
6,126
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,166
6,169
6,171
6,171~
6,171
6,175
6,182
6,191
6,291
6,297
6,322
6,322
6,322
6,322
6,322
6,378
6,448.
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
45
47
0
14
50
35
0
18
41
0
2
9
4
6
11
6
3
2
9
16
4
7
9
0
6
0
20
53
62
75
224
280
40
0
Cumul~ive
Years 1 - 10
Costs
10,872
10,919
10,919
10,933
10,983
11,018
11,018
11,036
11 077;
11 077~
11 079
11 088
11 092~
11 098
11 109
11 115
11 118~
11,120=
11,129’
11 149,
11 156
11 165
11,165
11,171
11,171
11 191
11 244
11 306
11 381
11 605
11 885
11 925~
11 925
11,925
11,953
11,981
12,044
o
28
28
63
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING
Sr. Center
Mitchell Lib
Mitch Park
Main Lib
Lot Q
Lot Q
Lot Q
Lot B
Lot B
Lot B
Downtn Lib
Cult Center
Cub MP
Cub Gym .
Child Theat
Cambridge
Bayland Int
APC
APC
Ventura
Terman # 30
Terman Lib
Stem Cent
Mitchell Lib
Mitchell Lib
Mitch Park "
Mitch Park
Main Lib
Main Lib
Downtn Lib
Downtn Lib
Cult Center
Cult Center
College Ter
Child Theat
Child Theat
Terman Lib
Terman Lib
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
SYSTEM
Interior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Lighting
Elevator
Mechanical
Mechanical
Elevator
Lighting
Exterior
Exterior
Equipment
Equipment
Exterior
Lighting~
Electrical
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Toilets
Toilets
Exterior
Exterior
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile~
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
.Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Toilets
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Backlog Years 1-10
Costs Costs
37
100
47
18
113
4O
Cumul~ive
Backlog
Costs
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,448
6,485
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,585
6,632
6,632
6,632
6,650
6,650
6,763
6,763
6,803
6,803
6,803
6,803
6,803
116
60
5O
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
84
45
87
74
12
16
120
5O
26
38
55
24
20
0
114
50
0
40
0
50 13
0 13
50 13
22 13
26 13
12 13
Cumul~ive
Years 1-10
Costs
12,160
12,220
12,270
12,370
12,370
12,370
12,370
12 370
12 370,
12 370
12 370
12 370
12 439
12,523
12568
12 655
12,729
12 741
12 757
12 877
12 927
12 953
12 991
13,046~
13,070
13,090
13,090
13,204
13,254
13,254
13,294
13 294
344
344
394
416
442
454
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIORITIES
~ (Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
BUILDING
Teen Center
Stem Cent
Stem Cent
Foothill Int
Cub Theater
Cub S - W
Cub MP
Cub J - L
Cub I
Cub Gym
Cub A - H
Cub - Pavil
College Ter
Child Lib
Ventura
Terman # 30
Teen Center
Cub Theater
Cub S - W
Cub MP
Cub J - L
Cub I
Cub Gym
Cub A - H
College Ter
College Ter
Child Lib
Child Lib
Cambridge
Teen Center
Terman # 30
Terman # 30
Restrooms
Bayland Int
Bayland Ath
Webster Gar
Seascouts
Restrooms
SYSTEM
Exterior
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Interior
Paint
Interior
Paint
Interior
Interior
Paint
Interior
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Interior Paint and Tile
Floor
Waterproof
Mechanical
Interior Paint and Tile
,Floor
Interior
Equipment/Casework
Bleachers
Exterior
Demolish
Exterior
Backlog Cumulative Years 1-10 Cumulative
Costs Backlog Costs Years 1 - 10
20
14
10
23
6
14
Costs Costs
6,803 7 13,461
6,803 46 13,507
6,803 20 13,527
6,803 103 13,630
6,803 65 13,695
6,803 90 13 785
6,803 65 13 850
6,803 128 13,978
6,803 38 14 016
6,803 80 14,096
6,803 128 14,224
6,803 80 14,304’
6,823 0 14,304
6,837 0 14,304
6,837 95 14,399
6,837 26 14,425
6,837~15 14,4401
6,837 30 14 470;
6,837 139 14 609
6,837 35 14 644
6,837’181 14 825
6,837 81 14 906
6,837 70 14 976
6,837 249 15 225
6,847 0 15 2251
6,870’0 15 225’
6,876 0 15 225
6,890 0 15225:
6,890,174~15,399
6,890’0 15,399
6,890 12 15,411
6,890 26 15,437i
6,890,851 16288
6,890 37 16,325
6,890 30 16,355
6,890 0 16,355
6,890 30 16,385
6,890 34 16,419
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
BUILDING AND FACILITIES PRIO~TIES
BUILDING
Fire 3
Cambridge
Bayland Int
Webster Gar
Thompson
Lot Q
Lot B
Bayland Int
Bayland Ath
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
SYSTEM
Roofing
Exterior
Exterior
Paint
Exterior
Paint
Paint
Floors - Refinish Wood
Exterior
Backlog Cumulative Years 1-10
Costs Backlog Costs
Costs
6,890
6 890
6,890
6 890
6 890
6 890
6 910
6 925
6 925
20
15
Cumul~ive
Years 1-10
Costs
22 16,441
25 16,466
110 16,576
0 16,576
25 16,601
48 16,649
0 16,649
15 16,664
ll 16,675
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo -
STREETS PRIORITIZATION TABLE
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
STREET FROM
Bibbits Drive Louis Road
Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue
Cowper Street Channing Avenue
David Avenue Stelling Drive
Ely Place Alma Street
Embarcadero Road W. Bayshore Road
Emerson Street Homer Avenue
Grove Cul-de-Sac1 Grove Avenue
Hamilton Avenue Lincoln Avenue
High Street Lincoln Avenue
Homer Avenue Kipling Street
Homer Avenue Cowper Street
Lincoln Avenue "University Avenue
Lundy Lane Ely Place
Lytton Avenue High Street
Matedero Avenue Laguna Avenue
May Court Mayview Avenue
Melville Avenue Guinda Street
Miranda Court Miranda Avenue
Miranda Green Miranda Avenue
Oregon Expwy Ramp FBirch Street
Page Mill Road City Limits
, Ramona Street Addison Avenue
Ramona Street Channing Avenue
Ramona Street Lincoln Avenue
Ross Road Louis Road
Seale Avenue Emerson Street
Sequoia Avenue
South Court
Stanford Avenue
University Avenue
Universit Avenue
Universit Avenue
Universit Avenue
Universit r Avenue
Umversit Avenue
Universit r Avenue
Universit t Avenue
Universit ~ Avenue
Universit ~ Avenue
Universit t Avenue
Universit t Avenue
Universit ~ Avenue
Universit ~ Avenue
Wavede Street
Wavede Street
,Webster Street
Wellesley Street
Wellesley Street
West Bayshore Road
Arbol Drive
Escobita Avenue
Colorado Avenue
Bowdoin Street
High Street
Fulton Street
Guinda Street
Kipling Street
Cowper Street
Tasso Street
Emerson Street
Wavedy Street
Seneca Street
Florence Street
Chaucer Street
Palm Street
Bryant Street
Ramona Street
Backlog Cumulative Year Years 1-10 Cumulative
Costs Backlog 1-10 Costs Years 1-10
Costs Costs
$21
$21
$11
$33
TO
End
Greer Road
Addison Street
Loma Verde Avenue
Lundy Lane
E. Bayshore Road
Channing Avenue
End
W. Cresent Ddve
Embarcadero Road
Cowper Street
Webster Street
End
End
Emerson Street
Lamata Way
End
Harker Avenue
End
End
Oregon Expressway
City Limits
Lincoln Avenue
Addison Avenue
Kingsley Avenue
Nathan Way
Bryant Street
Castilleja Avenue
End
Columbia Street
Emerson Street
Guinda Street
Seneca Street
Cowper Street
Tasso Street
Webster Street
Ramona Street
Kipling Street
Hale Street
Waverly Street
Madowe Street
Lincoln Avenue
Florence Street
Bryant Street
$18
$43
$25
$32
$47
$190
$31
$6
$38
$15
$17
$33
$15
$17
$13
$39
$18
$24
$21
$42
$24
$24
$24
$24
$24
$42
$24
$32
$31
$24
$24
$18
$26
$25
N. California Avenu Nevada Avenue
Oregon Expresswa Marion Avenue
Lytton Avenue University Avenue
Stanford Avenue Cameron Park $14
Cameron Park College Avenue $15
.Loma Verde Avenu Fabian Way $129
Los Robles Avenue Encina Grande Avenue $11
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo -
STREETS PRIORITIZATION TABLE
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
STREET FROM TO
Emerson Street Lincoln Avenue Embarcadero Road
Emerson Street Channing Avenue Addison Street
Georgia Avenue Abel Avenue Baker Avenue
L~ncoln Avenue Emerson Street Ramona Street
Matadero Avenue La Mata Way El Camino Real
Page Mill Road Montebelto Dahl Access Road
Page Mill Road Park Reservoir Canyon Road
Page Mill Road City Limits City Limits
Page Mill Road Canyon Road Altamont Road
Page Mill Road Dahl Reservoir Park Reservoir
Page Mill Road City Limits Dahl Reservoir
Amadllo Avenue Greet Road Tanland Drive
Bryant Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue
Byron Street N San Antonio Roa End
Campesino Avenue South Court Waverley Street
Celia Drive Agnes Way Burnham Way
Channing Avenue Middlefield Road Guinda Street
Chaucer Street University Avenue Hamilton Avenue
Cowper Street Seale Avenue Santa Rita Avenue
Cowper Street Washington Avenu N. California Avenue
Cowper Street Santa Rita Avenue Washington Avenue
Cowper Street Kellogg Avenue Embarcadero Road
Cowper Street Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue
Cowper Street Melville Avenue Kellogg Avenue
Cowper Street Addison Street Lincoln Avenue
Emerson Street Addison Street Lincoln Avenue
Fulton Street Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue
Fulton Street Palo Alto Avenue Everett Avenue
Georgia Avenue Donald Ddve End
Greet Cul-de-Sac8 Greer Road End
Grove Avenue Mayview Avenue Adobe Creek
Hamilton Avenue Cowper Street Webster Street
Hamilton Avenue W. Cresent Drive Center Ddve
Hamilton Avenue Center Ddve Island Ddve
Hamilton Avenue Bryant Street Gilman Street
Hamilton Avenue Wavedey Street Cowper Street
Hamilton Avenue Gilman Street "" Wavedey Street
Hawthorne Avenue Alma Street High Street
High Street Addison Street Lincoln Avenue
High Street Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue
Kellogg Avenue Emerson Street Bryant Street
Lincoln Avenue High Street Emerson Street
Lincoln Avenue Alma Street High Street
Lincoln Avenue Ramona Street Bryant Street
Loma Verde Avenue South Court Wavedey Street
Lytton Avenue Wavedey Street Kipling Street
MadposaAvenue ChurchillAvenue MiramonteAvenue
Madposa Avenue Miramonte Avenue Castilleja Avenue
Melville Avenue Tasso Street Webster Street
Melville Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Street
Melville Avenue Greenwood Avenue Channing Avenue
Backloq Cumulative Year Years 1-10 Cumulative
Costs Backlog 1-10 Costs Years 1-10
Costs Costs
$31
$31
$18
$99 ! Plus $1,0 million from SlF
$231
$209
$12
$238
$292
$329
$49
$34
$26
$18
$25
$32
$32
$47
$16
$17
$12
$25
$26
$25
$25
$21
$34
$21
$7
$32
$33
$18
$29
$17
$37
$17
$16
$21
$25
$33
$17
$16
$17
$20
$18
$31
$3O
$17
$16
$22
$1,912
$2,121
$2,133 ~
¯ $2,371 !
$2,663i$2,992
$3,041
$3,075
$3,101:
$3,119
$3,144
$3,176
$3,208
$3,255
$3,271
$3,288
$3,300
$3,325
$3,351.
$3,376;
$3,401
$3,422
$3,456
$3,477
$3,484
$3,516
$3,549
$3,567
$3,596
$3,613’
$3,650
$3,667
$3,683
$3,704
$3,729
$3,762.
$3,779
$3,795
$3,812
$3,832
$3,850
$3,881
$3,911
$3,928
$3,944
$3,966
II Plus $1.0 million from SIF
III Plus $1.0 million from SIF
IV Plus $1.0 million from SIF
V Plus $1.0 million from SlF
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo -
STREETS PRIORITIZATION TABLE
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
STREET FROM TO
N. San Antonio Road Feme Avenue Byron Street
Oregon Avenue Ramona Street B~/ant Street
Oxford Avenue Staunton Court El Camino Real
Oxford Avenue Yale Street Staunton Court
Parkinson Avenue Melville Avenue Hardet Street
Seale Avenue Guinda Street Newell Raod
Seale Avenue Tasso Street Webster Street
Seale Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street
Seale Avenue Webster Street Byron Street
Sequoia Avenue MadronoAvenue EscobitaAvenue
South Court N. California Avenu Oregon Expressway
Stanford Avenue Hanover Street Harvard Street
Stanford Avenue Columbia Street Dartmouth Street
Stanford Avenue Dartmouth Street Hanover Street
Staunton Court Oxford Avenue College Avenue
Waverley Street Colorado Avenue E~ Dorado Avenue
Webster Cul-de-Sac2 Webster Street End
Webster Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue
West Bayshore Road City Limit Channing Avenue
Melville Avenue Waverley ’Street End
Melville Avenue * Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue
Ramona Street Forest Avenue Homer Avenue
Ramona Street Homer Avenue Channing Avenue
Seale Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street
Hanover Street Stanford Avenue College Avenue
Starr King Circle Lindero Ddve Redwood Circle
Emerson Street EIVeranoAvenue End
Waverley Street Santa Rita Avenue Washington Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue Hale Street Chaucer Street
College Avenue Yale Street Staunton Court
Ash Street -Page Mill Road Pepper Avenue
Ash Street Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue
Webster Street Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue
,Ash Street Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue
Harriet Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue
’Harder Street Greenwood Avenue Channing Avenue
Webster Street Palo Alto Avenue Ruthven Avenue
Everett Avenue Wavedey Street Kipling Street
Kellogg Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street
Stanford Avenue Yale Street El Camino Real
Everett Avenue Kipling Street Cowper Street
Cowper Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue
Melville Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street
Cowper Street Homer Avenue ChanningAvenue
Backlo~q Cumulative
Costs Backlog_
Costs
$42 $4,008
$11 $4,019
$14 $4,033
$16 $4,049
$24 $4,073
$16 $4,O89
$17 $4,106
$32 $4,138
$17 $4,155
$10 $4,165
$43 $4,208
$18 $4,226
$18 $4,244
$18 $4,262
$18 $4,280
$50 $4,330
$11 $4,341
$2O $4,361
$79 $4,440
$23 $4,463
$23 $4,486
$25 $4,511
$21 $4,532
$16 $4,548
$35 $4,583
$30 $4,613
$18 $4,631
$22 $4,653
$27 $4,680’
$22 $4,702
$15 $4,717
$19’$4,736
$26 $4,762
$14 $4,776
$21 $4,797
$21 $4,818
$12 $4,830
$17 $4,847
$28 $4,875
$36 $4,911
$17 $4,928
$25 $4,953
$32 $4,985
$25 $5,010
Year Years 1-10 Cumulative
1-10 Costs Years 1-10
Costs
~000 $150_~0~_00
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo -
SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION TABLE
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
District
23 $1,029
22 $1,078
21 $778
30 $675
17 ~°$1,157
16 $790
11 $888
12 $381
13 $528
15 $497
14 $237
33 $204
34 $69
35 $103
25 $358
32 $18
Backlog Cumulative Year Years 1-10 Cumulative
(1)costs Backlog Costs Years 1-101-10
$2,107 II
$2,885 III-
$3,560
$4,717
$5,507
$6,395
$6,776
$7,304
$7,801
$8,038
$8,242
$8,311
$8,414
$8,772
$8,79O $9,000 $9,000
(1) For location of each district, see map following this page.
28
LEGEND
Aree Designotion 32
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo-,
MEDIANS PRIORITIZATION
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
. El Camino Real
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
.Embaracdero Road
.Embaracdero Road
.Embaracdero Road
Embaracdero Road
Embaracdero Road
Embaracdero Road
.,Embaracdero Road
San Antonio Road
..San Antonio Road
San Antonio Road
Arboretum Road
’Oregon Expressway
.Arastradero Road
Arastradero Road
’Arastradero Road
:Charleston Road
Alma Street
.,Alma Street
Alma Street
East Meadow Road
7 Cul de Sacs
.:Sand Hill Road
City limits University Avenue
University Avenue Embarcadero Road
Embarcadero Road California Avenue
Page Mill Road Arastradero Road
Arastradero Road City Limits
El Camino Real Alma Street
North side St. Francis, sidewalk strip
Seale Dead End at Louis
Guinda Triangle
Coleridge Dead End at Middlefield & sidewalk strip
Melville Dead End at Bryant
Kingsley Dead End at Emerson
Charlreston Road
Middlefield Road
Briarwood Way
Sand Hill Road
Bayshore
El Camino Real
Foothill Expressway
Hillview Avenue
Wright Avenue
University Avenue
San Antonio Road
East Charleston Road
Alma Street
Middlefield Road
Briarwood Way
Alma Street
Quarry Road
Greet Road
Foothill Expressway
Hiltview Avenue
City Limits
Montrose Avenue
University Avenue
East Charleston Road
¯ East Meadow Ddve
Ramona Street
Pastreur Drive City Limits
Cumulative
Backloq
$482
$45
$314
$336
$142
$202
$18
$13.
$13
$11$16,$3O,
$179,
$398,
$45
$78.
$53$17!
$50:
$15’
$123’
$118
$156,
$272
$19!
$14
$28
Backlog
$482 :Based on allocation,
$527 fall scenarios result in
$841 !less than $482,000 in
$1,177 funding. Over ten years
$1,319 ’.$2.1 million of backlog
$1,521 ~would be eliminated.
$1,539
$1,552
$1,565
$1,576r
$1,592
$1,622
$1,801
$2,199
$2,244
$2,322
$2,375
$2,392
$2,442
$2,457
$2,580
$2,698
$2,854
$3,126
$3,145
$3,159
$3,187
04109198, 04:55 PM Page 1 of I Page FILE;LICMED:I .WK4
ATTACHMENT 4
-$ooo-
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (1)
(Priorities are Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
Cumulative
Street/Location From To
Arastradero Road Foothill Expressway Dry Gulch CreekBaylandsMatadero Creek Faber PlaceEl Camino Park Alma Street University AvenueFabre Tract San Francisquito Creek Sunnymede StreetO~d SP Right of Way Arastradero Road Matadero CreekGolf Course Embarcadero Road San Francisquito CreekEmbarcadero Road Geng Road Golf Course,Baylands Dry Creek Matadem CreekJSB RR Right of Way University Avenue Churchill Avenue!Stanford San Francisquito Creek San Hill RoadTerman Park Arastradem Road Adobe Creek’;Old SP Right of Way Matadero Road Hanover Street,,Embarcadero Road Golf Course Embarcadero WayOld SP Right of Way Matadem Creek Matadem Road
Years 1-10 Years 1-10
Costs Costs
$190 $190
$156 $346
$80 $426
$152 $578
$46 $624
$110,$734.
$38i.$772
$178 $950
$186 $1,136
$30 $1,166
$57 $1,223
$38 $1,261
$1,261
Based on allocation, all’scenarios result in less:than $190k in funding
(1) No backlog was identified for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
PARKS PRIORITIZATION
Site
Site
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitchell
Scale
Robles
Lawn Bowling
Werry
Bol
Briones
Briones
Hoover
Robles
Bol
Bouleware
Cameron
Ramos
Scale
El Camino
Terman
Scott
Monroe
Werry
Mayfield
Greer
Greer
Greer
Pardee
Peers
Rinconada
Rinconada
Johnson
Greer
Hoover
Greer
Rinconada
Rinconada
Rinconada
Baylands Athl
Johnson
Bouleware
Bowden
Baylands Athl
Baylands Athl
El Camino
El Camino
El Camino
Component
Fencing
Covered walkway
Wading pool
Benches/trash receptacles
Walkways
Lighting
Playground
Irrigation
Irrigation
Playground
Playground
Irrigation
Benches/trash receptacles
Irrigation
Playground
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Fencing
Walkways
Skateboard maintenance
Playground
Playground
Walkways
Pool equipment
Playground
Lighting
Playground
Benches/trash receptacles
Benches/trash receptacles
Fencing
Lighting
Irrigation
Irrigation
Playground
Playground
Lighting
Drainage repairs
Walkways
Bleachers/field equipement
Lighting
Backlog Cumulative Annual Years 1-10
Costs Backlog Funding
Costs Levels
$70
$147
$42
$79i..
$350I- $70!
$81i
$70i$281
$28i
$98
$21
$87
$44
$44’
$95
$88’
$2171
$17’
$25:
$44’
$27
$280’
$280’
$84
$18
$35i
$4901
$315’
$123
$35
$39
$84
I
$6881 II
$758
$7581
$839 III
$909
$937
$965 IV
V
$1,215,
$1,259
$1,354~
$1,441,
$1,658’
$1,658,
$1,675’
$1,700!
$1,744
$1,770
$1,770~
$1,770,
$1,770,
$1,770,
$1,770,
$2,050:
$2,330’
$2,330!
$2,3301
$2330
$2 330
$2 414,
$2 432
$2 467
$2 957
$2 957
$2 957
$2 957
$3 272
$3 394
$3 429
$3468
$3,552
$30
$63
$18
$34
$150
$30
$35
$30
$12
$12
$42
$9
$37
$144
$19
$19
$41
$38’
$93’~
$7
$11
$19
$11
$15
$106
$25
$120
$120
$40
$38
$36
$8
$15
$210
$135
$53
$15
$17
$36
Cumulative
Years 1-10
’Costs
$30
$93
$111
$145
$295
$325
$325
$359
$389
$401
$413
$455
$464
$502
$502
$646
$665
$683
$724
$762’
$855
$8551
$862i
$8721
$891’
$903
$918
$1024
$1 049
$1 049
$1 049~
$1169:
$1289
$1 329
$1 329
$1,329
$1,367
$1,403,
$1,410
$1,425
$1,635~
$1,635
$1,635
$1,
$1,
$1,
$1,
$1,
$1,
635
770
823
838
854
890
ATTACHMENT 4
-$o00-
PARKS PRIORITIZATION
Site
Site
Briones
Briones
Cogswell
Weisshaar
Hopkins
Pardee
Peers
Ramos
Robles
Baylands Athl
Johnson
Scale
Hoover
Terman
Wallis
El Camino
El Camino
Cogswell
E1 Palo Alto
Pardee
Pardee
Pardee
Peers
Peers
Ramos
Robles
Robles
Baylands Athl
Johnson
Lytton
Lytton
Scale
Scale
Bol
Bouleware
Bouleware
Bowden
Bowden
Hoover
Hoover
Monroe
Scott
Wallis
Cogswell
Bol
Bouleware
Bowden
Cameron
Monroe
~ Component
Fencing
Walkways
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation
Walkways
Walkways
Walkways
Walkways
Fencing and netting
Walkways
Walkways
Walkways
Equipment
Irrigation
Fencing and netting
Scorer’s booth
Walkways
Miscellaneous repairs
Multipurpose Area
Benches/trash receptacles
Fence
Benches/trash receptacles
Fence
Benches/trash receptacles
Fencing
Benches/trash receptacles
Field equipment
Benches/trash receptacles
Landscaping/benches
Paving
Fencing
Benches/trash receptacles
Walkways
Walkways
Fencing
Walkways
Fencing
Benches/trash receptacles
Fencing
Walkways
Walkways
Walkways
Benches/trash receptacles
Benches/trash receptacles
Benches/trash receptacles
Benches/trash receptacles
Walkways
Benches/trash receptacles
Backlog Annual Years 1-10
Costs Funding
Levels
$21
$70
$21
$29
$28
$98
$144
$70
$210
$140
$130
$105
$18
$53
$21
$7O
$21
$70
$21
$23
$53
$18
$22
$13
$7
$14
$14
$7
$7
$4
Cumulative
Backlog
Costs
$3,573
$3,643
$3,664
$3,693
$3,721
$3 819
$3 819
$3 962
$4 032
$4242
$4 242
$4 382
$4,512
$4,512.
$4,512
$4,617
$4,634
$4,634
$4,634
$4,687
$4,708
$4,778
$4,778
$4,778
$4,799
$4,799
$4,7991
$4,869’
$4,890
$4,890.
$4,890’
$4,913
$4,913
_, $4,913
$4,965
$4,983
$5,005
$5,005
$5,018
$5,025
$5,039
$5 053
$9
$30
$9
$12
$12
$42
$30
$62
$30.
$90
$60
$56
$25
$20
$45
$8
$70
$23
$9
$3O
$9
$30
$9
$10
$56
$23
$8
$10
$6
$6
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
053.
060
066
066
066
073
076
$10
$3
$2
$3
$2
Cumulative
Years 1-10
Costs
$1,899
$1,929
$1,938
$1,951
$1,963
$2,005
$2,035
$2,096
$2,126.
$2,216.
$2,216.
$2,276.
$2 332
$2 3571
$2 377~
$2 422
$2 429
$2 499’
$2 499’
$2.522
$2,531
$2,561
$2,561
$2,561
$2,570
$2,570
$2,570
$2,600
$2,609
$2,609
$2,609
$2,618
$2,618
$2,674
$2,697.’
$2,704
$2,714
$2,714
$2,720.
$2,7231
$2,7291
$2,735
$2,745~
$2~748
$2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$2,753
$2,755
ATTACHMENT 4
-$000-
PARKS PRIORITIZATION
Site
Site
Mayfield
Lawn Bowling
Weisshaar
Wen3,
Cameron
Mayfield
Mayfield
Weisshaar
Werry
Ester Clark
General
Component
Walkways
Trellis
¯ Walkways
Walkways
Benches/trash receptacles
Fencing
Benches/trash receptacles
Equipment
Benches/trash receptacles
Fire Prevention
Erosion Control
Backlog Cumulative Annual Years 1-10
Costs Backlog Funding
Costs Levels
$42
$35
$14
$7
$4
$11
$4
$4
$3
$18
$56
$5,118
$5 153
$5 167
$5 174
$5 178
$5 188
$5 192
$5 195
$5 198
$5216
$5 272
$18
$15
$6
$3
$2
$5
$2
$2
$1
$33
$344
Cumulative
Years 1-10
Costs
$2,773
$2,788
$2,794
$2,797
$2,798
$2,803
$2,804
$2,806
$2,807
$2,839
$3,183
¯ " ATTACHMENT 4
-$0o0-
OPEN SPACE PRIORITIZATION
Site
Foothills
Arastradero
Byxbee
Byxbee
Byxbee
Foothills
Foothills
Byxbee
Arastradero
Arastradero
Foothills
Foothills
Arastradero
Byxbee
Foothills
Foothills
Foothills
Foothills
Byxbee
Byxbee
Component
Trails
Trails
Trails
Flood control tide gate
Duck pond
Irrigation
Lake and dam
Culvert replacement
Lake
Bridge
Foot bridge
Parking
Paving
Boardwalk
Boat dock ramp
Camping areas
Site furniture
Fencing
Benches/trash receptacles
Paving
Backlog Cumulative Annual .Years 1-10
Costs Backlog ¯Funding Costs
Levels
70
31.5
10.5
0
35
175
49
0
$14
$28
$210
$147
$7O
$0
$0
$18
$35
$14
$o
$315
Costs
$70
$102.
$112
$112
$147 I
~ $322! II.IV
$371i
$3711 V
$385
$413
$623
$770
$840
$840
$840
$858
$893
$907,
$907’
$1,222’
$430
$195
$50
$50
$15
$75
$101
$80
$86
$12
$90
$63
$30
$23
$0
’$8
$65
$86
$38
$310
Cumulative
Years 1-10
Costs
$430
$625
$674
$724
$739
$814
$915
$995
$1,081
$1,093
$1,183
$1,246
$1,276
$1,299
$1,299
$1,307
$1,372
$1,458
$1,496
$1,806
ATTACHMENT 6
New and Expanded Building/Facilities Needs
(Costs Not Included in Existing Infrastructure Financing Plan)
Community Services
1.Building/Facility: Library Master Plan Improvements
Description: Expansion and remodel of the Main, Mitchell and Children’s Libraries.
Enhanced internal lighting for the Children’s, Downtown, Main and Mitchell
Libraries also is needed.
Justification: Additional space is of considerable concern, given significantly
increased usage at the Main, Mitchell and Children’s Libraries. There is inadequate
space for shelving, equipment space needs, new technology requirements, and patron
use. Usage at Mitchell Park has, for example, increased by 48 percent over the last
10 years. Lighting within the libraries needs to be enhanced, particularly in shelving
and patron use areas.
o Building/Facility: Lucie Stern Community Theatre Air Conditioning
Description: Installation of air conditioning at the Theatre.
Justification: The lack of air conditioningat the Lucie Stern Community Theatre has
consistentlybeen identified as a significant deficiencY by theatre goers, contract usei~s,
and staff. Because of the desire of the three contract users (West Bay Opera, the Pal.
Alto Players, and Theatre Works) to address this urgent need as soon as possible, they
have prepared and submitted a grant request in the amount of $150,000 to the David
and Lucille Packard Foundation. Staff expects to hear from the Packard Foundation
in September 1997.
Building/Facility: Cubberley Community Center T-Wing Remodel/Expansion
Description: Remodel existing administrative office space to house 12 additional
employees from the Recreation Division. Relocate the public reception desk to the
front entrance, replacing the existing lobby and conference room. Create a secure
work station for cashiering, as well as for hourly staff located adjacent to the
reception desk. Create a conference room and more efficient work space. Reduce the
size of the kitchen to accommodate office machines.
Justification: Remodeling will allow for consolidating Recreation Section staff at
one facility and more efficient use of space.
,5.
Building/Facility: Lucie Stern Community Center Office Expansion
Description: Extensive remodel of the basement area under the main administrative
wing to create functional working areas for five employees. Remodel includes
installation of heating and air conditioning, reconfiguration, of walls to organize
storage space, installation of sump pump to protect against flooding, installation of
a service elevator, and installation of data and electrical receptacles.
Justification: Built in 1933, the Lucie Stern Community Center basement has been
used as a game room, meeting room, storage facility and offices. The area is now
used by five temporary employees, but lacks necessary safety features to prevent
flooding. Flooding occurs three times a year. The configuration of office space and
storage is inefficient. It is difficult to move elaborate decorations, sports equipment,
and sound and lighting equipment through the offices and up narrow stairs.
Building/Facility:
Improvements
PAUSD School Site Irrigation and Athletic Field Turf
Description: These improvements consist ofdevelopingplans and specifications and
completing renovations of irrigation and turf on PAUSD athletic field sites not
currently part of the joint agreement (as many as 20 additional acres, representing an
additional 11 school sites). Turf improvements, including renovations, filling of holes
and depressions, and maintenance of adequate fertility levels is necessary.
Justification: This work will improve the quality of turf used for athletic fields and
reduce potential safety hazards. Operating efficiencies will be enhanced through
replacement of labor-intensive, dilapidated irrigation systems.
6.Building/Facility: Teen Center
Description: Meeting and activity center for teenagers (annual attendance: 10,000).
Activities include cla~ses, drop-in use of pool tables and conversation areas, dances
and special events. The 3,000-square-foot building is to replace the current facility
and will consist of two classrooms (300 sq. ft. each), kitchen, public restrooms, and
offices to accommodate employees.
2
Justification: The present building at 425 Bryant Street is slated for demolition in
2000 to make way for a new City parking structure.
Building/Facility: Cubberley Community Center Locker Room Expansion.
Description: Remodel the locker rooms at Cubberley to create additional storage,
program or office space.
Justification: During much of the year, Cubberley does not have desirable spaces for
rent. These new spaces will create additional rental spaces and revenue.
Building/Facility: Cubberley Athletic Field Restroom and Concession Facility
Description: This facility would be located at the south end of the athletic field for
use by resident and non-profit youth sports groups. The building would also house
men’s and women’s public restrooms with exterior entrances.
10.
Justification: Currently, there are no public restrooms at these heavily used athletic
fields. Lack ofrestrooms has created a sanitation and public nuisance problem in the
area. A concession stand will serve the thousands of athletes and spectators who use
the fields, while allowing community groups to generate funds from operation of the
stand.
Building/Facility: Byxbee Park: Phase 2 Expansion
Description: To select an artist to work in collaboration with a landscape architect
to design Phase 2 of the Byxbee Park landfill closure.
Justification: The Public Art commissionhas adopted Phase 2 of the landfill closure
as a long-range objective. When landfill closure occurs, it is expected that the acreage
will continue to be developed in accordance with the Baylands Master Plan. This
requires conversion of the landfill to passive parkland.
Building/Facility: Cubberley Community Center Theater Lobby
Description: The 325-seat theater has a small lobby (240 square feet) and no
attached public restrooms. Proposed changes include enlarging the lobby by
expanding it to the west to the adjacent raised terrace area, thus providing an
additional 1,375 square feet. In addition, new public restrooms would be constructed
on the south side of the theater, and could be accessed from the lobby.
Justification: This is a Cubberley Master Plan recommendation. These changes
could attract additional rentals and generate additional revenue. Higher profile clients
will be attracted to rent the facility, creating increased public visibility for theater
events.
11.Building/Facility: Cubberley Community Center Multi-Purpose Room/Kitchen
Remodel
Description: The kitchen facility in the Multi~Purpose Room needs renovation and
conversion into a catering kitchen. The remaining kitchen space, together with the
existing areas on the east side of the building and the existing outdoor patio on the
west side, would be renovated to provide meeting and seminar rooms.
12.
Justification: This is a Cubberley Master Plan recommendation. Partitioning of the
existing space is inefficient for both food preparation and classes. Renovated spaces
will allow us to better serve corporate clients for meetings and seminars.
Building/Facility: Remodel and Renovation of the Lucie Stem Community Theatre
13.
Description: The Lucie Stem Community Theatre, constructed in 1932, needs
remodeling so the facility can meet current requirements such as Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines and to address building deficiencies that interfere
with today’s program uses. Building needs include: space for broadcasting visual
descriptions for the visually impaired, orchestrapit expansion, seat refurbishment, and
improved exterior lighting.
Justification: ADA guidelines require audio descriptive information for the visually
impaired. Current attempts to provide this service are unwieldy and cause distraction
to other patrons. The orchestra pit is inadequate to accommodate the number and
needs of musicians who must squeeze into very limited space. Auditorium seats have
not been completely refurbished since their original installation in 1932. The seats
are uncomfortable compared to more modem theatre seats. Exterior lighting at Lucie
Stem is not adequate, particularly in the patio and parking lot areas. Enhanced
lighting is needed for the safety of patrons.
Building/Facility: Remodel and Renovate the Children’s Theatre
Description: The Children’s Theatre, constructed in 1935, is in need of remodeling
to bring the facility up to date with current requirements such as ADA guidelines and
4
to address the building deficiencies that interfere with today’s program uses.
Remodeling improvements include: boys and girls dressing rooms; a boys bathroom;
the Costume Room; the kitchen; and lighting, sound and communication systems
Project Justification: Redesigning the dressing rooms, which are crowded, will
allow for more efficient use of space. The boy’s bathroom in the Children’s Theatre
lobby is the primary public bathroom for boys and men. Recent ADA modifications
changed the bathroom from a multi-person bathroom to a one-person bathroom,
causing long lines at intermission. The Costume Room is too small a space for
needed program work and storage space. The kitchen is very small and cramped. It
needs to be reconfigured and expanded to provide efficient use of space for program
requirements and uses. Lighting, sound and communication systems are 15 years old,
outdated and need updating to reflect changes in theatre technology.
14.Building/Facility: Towle Camp Ground Expansion
Description: Expansion of the Towle Campground at Foothill Park and creation of
a shower/restroom facility for campers. Increase the number of campsites from 6 to
25.
Justification: This popular campsite area fills to capacity every weekend from April
through September. Public requests for additional camping area necessitates
expansion. Although most campers stay only one night, they prefer to have access to
a shower facility after a day of hiking.
15.Building/Facility: City Hall Plaza
Description: Complete review and redesign of the appearance and use of the City
Hall Plaza (exterior only), including the crosswalk to Centennial Plaza.
Justification: The Palo Alto Public Art Commission has identified the redesign of
the Plaza as one of its long-term goals. The Public Art Commission views the Plaza
as a space that represents the City and should be a natural and prime location for
public art. It’s the place where the City should show itself off at its best. The
crosswalk to Centennial Plaza would represent another small increment to the "civic
axis" as envisioned in the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
5
16.Building/Facility: Completion of Greer Park Master Plan
Description: Work includes a re-assessment of user and facility needs and
completion of development of the southeast comer of the Park. The area remains an
undeveloped parcel of land. The current Master Plan includes construction of
additional tennis courts and related amenities. Suggestions from the community have
included additional parking, picnic areas, turf and trees, and replacement of the
narrow dog run currently located at the Park.
Justification: Greer Park remains one of the last areas usable as park space. This
vacant land is a valuable asset that can be used for the community’s enjoyment.
17.Building/Facility: Renewal of Cogswell Park
Description: The Public Art Commission has adopted, as a long-range goal, a new
design for Cogswell Park, to be created by a major artist in collaboration with a
landscape architect. The redesignedpark would continue to be a multi-use space, but
a park which is exceptional in design and which would be unique to Palo Alto.
Justification: Cogswell Park is Palo Alto’s only true "urban" park. It rests close to
the hub of University Avenue on Lytton, a street which is becoming increasingly
active in its own right with new developments. Various communities would benefit
from a beautifully-designed, "signature" park at such a location.
18.Building/Facility: Mitchell Park Community Center Reconfiguration
Description: Mitchell Park Community Center presently houses work space for eight
employees in two offices. The facility also includes three public meeting
rooms/classrooms, a large assembly area, private patio, kitchen, recreation room and
lobby. The City Council has given staff direction to find room at Mitchell Park to
accommodate a Family Resource Center (FRC). Although the FRC is still in the
conceptual phase, staff has determined the Center will require reconfiguration of the
Center and possible connection with the Mitchell Park Library. The project may be
affected by the Mitchell Park Library expansion, as determined by the final Library
Master Plan.
Justification: City Council direction. The present offices are utilized completely, and
there is no space for a private counseling room or library.
19.Building/Facility: Performing Arts Facility
Description: This new facility would combine performing arts programs throughout
the City into one facility.
Justification: City of Palo Alto performing arts buildings are aging and do not
provide "state of the art" production facilities and accommodations.
Police
Building/Facility: Public Safety Building
Description: The City Council has directed staff to formally initiate the process for
site selection and construction of a public safety building. This building will house
Police Department operations, and the Fire Department administrative functions.
Justification: A needs analysis determined that the current space at City Hall
allocated to the public safety functions at the Civic Center has not kept pace with the
changing public safety environment. Specifically, the facility no longer provides an
efficient or legally compliant environment. A new public safety building will not
change the level of services provided by the Police and Fire Departments. Rather, it
will enhance existing operations, reduce potential liabilities, and increase efficiency
and productivity of personnel.
2.Building/Facility: Animal Services Center
Description: Several areas within the Animal Center are in need of improvement.
These include: retiling, resurfacing and painting the kennels; reflooring several
rooms; purchasing air heaters; building additional kennels for protective custody and
quarantining animals; resurfacing the parking lot; and remodeling to create more
efficient use of space.
Justification: The kennel area is quite old and in need of updating. The floor area
is cracked and water pools create an environment in which viruses thrive. Ambient
air heaters are needed to create a warmer environment. Additional kennels are needed
to quarantine animals exhibiting aggressive behavior. With the regional agreement
with surrounding cities for animal services, the Animal Center has seen an increase
in the number of police holds and quarantines. The parking lot is cracking and
buckling and is in need of repair. In addition, a room near the surgery area needs
7
remodeling to create more space.
Public Works
Building/Facility: MSC Facility Expansion and Upgrade
Description: Anticipated improvements include: a reassessment of user needs and
site circulation patterns; construction of a new building for Parks and Utilities office
space and storage; construction of covered parking for UV-sensitive vehicles;
remodeling of vacated space in Building C for occupancy and use; remodeling of
office space in Buildings A and B; enlarging and refiguring employee parking lots;
and repairing and resurfacing paved areas.
Justification: The MSC facility has not expanded to meet growing operating needs
over the past years. Space is not well utilized within buildings and the yard area.
Conversion of operating space for office needs over the years has resulted in
inadequate ventilation for offices, lack of storage facilities, and inefficient and
potentially unsafe work areas.
Citywide
Building/Facility: Space Needs
Project Description: Throughout City buildings, there is a growing need for
additional space. New facility requests in this report consistently identify space needs
as a major concern. The Civic Center is also experiencing a need for additional space.
Departments such as Planning, Administrative Services, and the City Attomey’s
Office have inadequate space to accommodate per.sonnel, documents and equipment.
Justification: Crowded working .conditions are not optimal for efficient and
productive work. Work space has been maximized through prior remodelings, but has
not kept pace with the need to store current documents, equipment, new technology
and personnel.
ATTACHMENT 7
Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Work
(Costs Not Included in Existing Infrastructure Financing Plan)
Traffic and Transportation
1. Neighborhood (Local & Collector Street) Traffic Calming Program
This program protects neighborhood streets from impacts of vehicular traffic.
The proposed program recommends establishing an annual ongoing budget of
$100,000 per year for the design and installation of traffic calming devices on
local and collector streets.
Major Intersection Improvement Program
This program designs and implements traffic operational and bike improvements
at selected intersections per the adopted City policy resulting from the Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study. It is estimated that a total of $6 to $7
million or $450,000 to $550,000 per year over the next 15 years will be required
to complete this program.
Residential Arterial Traffic Calming Program
This proposed program would develop, design, and construct physical changes
to five arterial roadways (Embarcadero Road, University Avenue, Charleston
Road, Arastradero Road, and Middlefield Road) that are proposed to be
designated as "residential arterial" in the new Comprehensive Plan. This is a
large, complex program that could lead to improvements costing $800,000 to
$1,000,000 per mile, or $10 to $12 million for all five residential arterial (12
miles of roadway).
0 Intermodal Transportation Center Program
This is a long-range program to bring about a major land use and circulation
plan for the area centered around the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. Funding
requirements include $400,000 for initial design and environmental review, $6 ’
million for complete design, and $28 million for construction. An amount of
$200,000 in state/federal grants has been approved.
Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
There is a need for new or expanded off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities which
would improve safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as
encourage expanded use of bicycling and walking as alternative modes of
transportation. One example of such work is an Arastradero Road (Page Mill to
ATTACHMENT 7
Alpine) bike facility. This facility could include an off-street pedestrian/bicycle path
and/or bicycle lanes along the existing roadway. The .estimated total expenses for this
work are $1.2 million.
Another example of expanded bike/pedestrian facilities is a Bay to Foothills pathway.
This multi-use path from the Baylands to the Foothills, using existing park lands, creek
corridors, Stanford lands and other various areas is likely to develop in incremental,
Usable segments as opportunities surface. To complete such a pathway, it is estimated
that $4 to $5 million will be needed over the next fifteen years.