HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-06 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
June 6, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
1 June 6, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes of April 11, 2011
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
1.Request for Approval of: 1) Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto on Behalf
of the Joint Powers and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. for
Public, Education, and Government Access Channel Support Services; 2)
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C05111535 Between the City of Palo Alto
and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the Amount of $25,000 for
Cablecasting and Other Production Services Through June 30, 2011 for a Total
Amount Not to Exceed $125,000; 3) Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto
and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the Amount of $100,000
for Cablecasting Services from July 1, 2011 Through June 30, 2014; and 4)
Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendments to the Cablecasting
Services Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula
Community Media Center, Inc. for Additional Services in an Amount Not to
Exceed $25,000 Per Year
2 June 6, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
2.Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Add $48,510 to Contract No.
S11136318 with R3 Consulting Group, Inc. for a Total Amount Not to Exceed
$133,190 for Completion of the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study
3.Approval of Letter to Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, Senator Joe Simitian and
Assembly Member Rich Gordon to authorize the Rail Committee to
communicate with the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC), the California High
Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and related interests as necessary, regarding the
City’s support of the April 18th, 2011 joint statement on High Speed Rail (HSR)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
4.Approval of an Amendment to the Agreement with Sherry L. Lund Associates
in an Amount of $7,450 for Mid-Year Check-In and Alignment for Council
Appointed Officers, and Review and Approval of Revised Criteria for City
Attorney Performance Evaluation
5.PUBLIC HEARING-QUASI JUDICIAL: Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project (SUMC Project); Adoption of a Resolution Containing
California Environmental Quality Act Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan
to Permit the SUMC Project; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning
Code to Establish a New “Hospital District”; Adoption of an Ordinance
Approving a Thirty–Year Development Agreement; Adoption of a Record of
Land Use Action Approving a Conditional Use Permit for the SUMC Project;
Adoption of a Resolution Commencing Annexation of an Approximate 0.65
acre Site from Santa Clara County; Acceptance of SUMC Area Plan Update; and
Adoption of a Resolution Approving Architectural Review Board Findings
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
3 June 6, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 4000 Middlefield Avenue, Assessors Parcel No. 147-08-052
Negotiating Party: Linda Thor, Chancellor
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
City Negotiator: James Keene, Donald Larkin, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez, Martha
Miller
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment for Possible Future
Sale/Lease
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is
described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table
at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
4 June 6, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Standing Committee Packets from the City Manager
Standing Committee Packets from the Administrative Services
1.Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk
Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
World Music Day Update
Update on Permit Activity at the Development Center
Palo Alto Library Projects April 2011 Report
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Fourth Quarter Sales (October -
December 2010)
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1656)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/6/2011
June 06, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1656)
Summary Title: Approval of Agreements with Media Center
Title: Request for Approval of: 1) Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto on
Behalf of the Joint Powers and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc.
for Public, Education, and Government Access Channel Support Services; 2)
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C05111535 Between the City of Palo Alto
and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the Amount of $25,000 for
Cablecasting and Other Production Services Through June 30, 2011 for a Total
Amount Not to Exceed $125,000; 3) Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto
and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the Amount of $100,000 for
Cablecasting Services from July 1, 2011 Through June 30, 2014; and 4) Authorize
the City Manager to Execute Amendments to the Cablecasting Services
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Community
Media Center, Inc. for Additional Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $25,000
Per Year
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1)Approve an Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, representing the Joint Powers
communities (Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the Town of Atherton and portions of
San Mateo and Santa Clara counties), and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc.
from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, with the option to extend for two additional two-
year periods, for public, education, and government access channel support services.
2)Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C05111535 between the City of Palo Alto
and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc., in the amount of $25,000, to cover
cablecasting and other production services through June 30, 2011, for a total contract
amount not to exceed $125,000.
June 06, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1656)
3)Approve an Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Community
Media Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per year, from July 1, 2011
through June 30, 2014, for cablecasting services.
4)Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute one or more amendments to the
Cablecasting Services Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula
Community Media Center, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may
develop during the year, in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per year. If the contingency
is utilized, it would bring the total amount of the Cablecasting Services Agreement (in
recommendation number three above) to $125,000.
BACKGROUND
In 1983, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was entered into by Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo
Park, the Town of Atherton and portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties for the
purposes of obtaining cable television service for residents, businesses, and institutions within
these jurisdictions. The JPA gives Palo Alto the sole authority to administer cable franchises and
act on behalf of the JPA members. Cable franchise holders provide various forms of
compensation (e.g., franchise fees; public, education, and government (PEG) access fees and
local channels, etc.) to pay for the use of the JPA’s public rights-of-way.
The City’s Cable Television Ordinance provides that the City may designate a nonprofit access
management entity (Access Corporation) to operate and administer its PEG facilities,
equipment and channels. In 1991, the City Council designated the Mid-Peninsula Access
Corporation (MPAC) as its Access Corporation. In 2000, as part of the sale of the Cable Co-op
system to AT&T, a new nonprofit, the Silicon Valley Community Communications (SVCC) was
formed. AT&T made a charitable donation of $17 million to SVCC. In August 2001, MPAC
merged with SVCC and was renamed the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. (Media
Center). Since that time, the Media Center has served as the Access Corporation for the JPA. In
this role, the Media Center administers the JPA’s seven PEG channels, broadcasts local
community programs, offers video production classes and workshops to community members,
and provides local election coverage. In 2010, the Media Center cablecast a total of 2,782
community programs and provided gavel-to-gavel coverage of 368 local government meetings.
Palo Alto forwards all PEG access fees received from franchise holders (currently AT&T and
Comcast) to the Media Center in support of these services. These PEG fees total approximately
$325,000 on an annual basis.
The Media Center has used a portion of the AT&T charitable donation to purchase a new state-
of-the-art facility (studio, video production and training facility) located at 900 San Antonio
Road in Palo Alto. The donation monies are also used, on an ongoing basis, to fund a portion of
the Media Center’s annual operating expenditures.
The JPA’s existing agreement with the Media Center expires on June 30, 2011. In addition, the
City of Palo Alto has a separate agreement with the Media Center for cablecasting services in
the amount of $100,000 per year. This agreement is also set to expire on June 30, 2011.
June 06, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1656)
DISCUSSION
Access Corporation Agreement
Since the early 1990’s the Media Center (formerly the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation) has
served as the Access Corporation for the JPA. Over the years, the Media Center has created a
vibrant organization and built a top-notch studio and training facility that serves the JPA
communities. Since the Media Center owns its video production facility and has ongoing
income from the AT&T charitable donation to supplement its operating expenditures, there is a
significant barrier to entry for any other provider of this service. Due to these circumstances,
staff recommends that the City Council approve a new Access Organization agreement with
Media Center on behalf of the JPA. The key terms are discussed below.
Term: The new agreement is for a three-year time period with the option to extend for two
additional two-year periods. This term was established to coincide with the term of the
Comcast franchise agreement, expiring in 2018. The AT&T franchise agreement expires in
2017.
Public Channel Administration: Operate and manage public access channel numbers 27, 28,
and 30 for local community programming purposes. Community members use the public
access channels to create and distribute programs that promote and celebrate individual
expression, local achievements, education, cultural exchange, arts appreciation and civic
engagement.
Government Channel Administration: Operate and manage government access channel
numbers 26 and 29. These duties include coordinating JPA member requests for use of the
channels, program scheduling, program acquisition and production, live unedited coverage of
government meetings, replays of local agency meetings, channel publicity and maintenance of
the scrolling cable text.
Education Channel Administration: The two education access channels (channel numbers 75
and 76) are operated and managed by Stanford University and De Anza Community College.
The Media Center would only be called upon to manage these channels on an as needed basis.
Classes, Facilities & Equipment: Manage and maintain a video production studio, cameras, and
editing equipment so that it is available for public use. Offer workshops in the techniques of
video production and provide technical advice in the creation and execution of productions.
Train and certify students to become community producers to create non-commercial
programs for distribution on the public channels.
Annual Plan and Budget: Involve the JPA in the development of annual plans and budgets.
Each year, the Media Center would submit its annual plan and budget to the City, outlining the
activities and programs that are planned for the following fiscal year. The JPA would have an
opportunity to comment on the plans and Media Center would take the comments into
account when finalizing its annual plan and budget.
June 06, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1656)
Standard Rates: The new agreement implements a new set of standard hourly rates that will
be used by JPA member communities, schools, non-profits, and small businesses when
contracting with Media Center for the creation and production of custom videos or for
cablecasting government meetings. Examples of custom videos include: clips for websites,
public service announcements, training videos, fundraising campaign messages, live event
coverage, and documentaries. The Media Center’s existing rates are based on operating costs
that included high facility rental expenses. With the SVCC merger and subsequent ownership of
its facility, the Media Center has been able to reduce its operating costs. As a result, the Media
Center has lowered some of its production and miscellaneous rates in the new agreement,
while keeping all other rates unchanged.
Funding: The City would continue to pass along the entire PEG fee payment received from
AT&T and Comcast to the Media Center. These fees are $.88 per subscriber per month, or
approximately $325,000 annually.
Amendment to Existing Agreement
Staff requests that the Council approve an amendment to the existing agreement between the
City of Palo Alto and the Media Center to cover cablecasting and other production services
through June 30, 2011. This amendment adds $25,000 to the existing agreement, for a total of
$125,000 in fiscal year 2010-11. This money is needed since there have been a larger number
of (and longer starting at 6pm instead of 7pm) City Council and Council Committee meetings
this fiscal year (e.g., new Rail Corridor Study Task Force, Council Rail Committee, etc.). In
addition, this funding is to pay for coverage of the City Council retreat held in January 2011 and
the Mayor’s State of the City address.
City of Palo Alto Cablecasting Services Agreement
Staff requests that Council approve a new agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the
Media Center, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per year, starting on July 1, 2011. This
agreement funds: 1) cablecasting of Palo Alto City Council, Council Committee and Board and
Commission meetings; 2) archiving webcasts of City meetings and hosting on them on the
Media Center website; and 3) programming of Palo Alto special events, programs and activities.
The Media Center will bill for these services monthly based upon the standard rates established
in the Access Corporation agreement with the JPA. A contingency amount not to exceed
$25,000 per year is requested to cover extended City meetings or additional production
services requirements, if needed. If the contingency is used, it would bring the total contract
amount to $125,000 per year.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the Access Corporation agreement come from PEG fee revenues (approximately
$325,000 annually) received from AT&T and Comcast. Funds for the City of Palo Alto
agreement are part of the Technology Fund’s FY 2011-12 Proposed Budget. These costs are
offset by franchise fee revenues received from AT&T and Comcast, which amounted to
$768,449 in calendar year 2010.
June 06, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1656)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation is consistent with the City Council practice of funding PEG access services
provided by the Access Corporation with PEG fee revenues received from cable franchise
holders.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Agreement Between the Media Center and the City of Palo Alto
Representing the JPA for PEG Services (PDF)
·Attachment B: Amendment No. 1 to C05111535(PDF)
·Attachment C: Agreement between the Media Center and the City of Palo Alto for
Cablecasting Services (PDF)
Prepared By:Melissa Cavallo, Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1452)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/6/2011
June 06, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1452)
Summary Title: Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study Contract
Title: Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Add $48,510 to Contract No.
S11136318 with R3 Consulting Group, Inc. for a Total Amount Not to Exceed
$133,190 for Completion of the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S11136318 (Attachment A) with R3
Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $48,150, for a total contract amount not to
exceed $133,190.00 for completion of the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study.
Executive Summary
Staff is seeking approval to add tasks and funding to the existing contract with R3
Consulting Group, Inc. to ensure that the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study ultimately
contains the best data possible and considers all key alternatives.
Background
In August 2010, Public Works awarded a contract in the amount of $84,680 to R3
Consulting Group, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive cost of service study for the Refuse
Fund that will be instrumental in addressing recent Refuse Fund budget shortfalls,
growing the Refuse Rate Stabilization Reserve and ensuring that the refuse rate
structure meets Proposition 218 requirements.
Discussion
An integral part of the cost of service study is the development and use of a cost of
service and forecasting model that can be used to analyze refuse rates and predict
revenues. As the cost of service study progressed, staff requested that R3 Consulting
Group, Inc. develop a census-based approach for predicting revenues instead of simply
relying on actual budget revenues as had been specified in the scope of services. This
change was requested to make the model more useful for predicting changes in
revenue in response to rate changes. However, reconciling the revenues projected by
the cost of service model with actual revenues has been very difficult due to the
difficulty in extracting accurate and complete information from the City’s SAP system.
June 06, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1452)
The ongoing work on this aspect of the cost of service model has required R3 to spend
many hours of additional work on the cost of service model, as well as attending a
number of additional meetings with staff. Staff has also requested R3 to account for
the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the cost of service model, including accounting for
landfill closure and post-closure liabilities and multiple year rate adjustments to build up
the Rate Stabilization Reserve. This additional work also necessitated additional hours
and meetings with staff.
Due to the extra hours spent on development of the cost of service and forecasting
model, additional funding is necessary for completion of the other tasks in the scope of
services.The requested funding will also allow R3 to develop multiple Rate Stabilization
Reserve funding scenarios, and to develop multiple options for implementing rate
adjustments. Each of these additional subtasks entail additional meetings with staff
and final adjustment of the cost of service and forecasting model to reflect the option
selected by the City. The attached contract amendment adds $48,510 to the contract
with R3 Consulting Group, Inc. to allow provision of the services described above.
Timeline
The cost of service study, including the additional scope to be funded by the attached
contract amendment, will be completed in December 2011.
Resource Impact
Funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2011 Refuse Fund operating budget.
Environmental Review
This contract amendment approval does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review was required.
Attachments:
·Contract S11136318 R3 Amendment One -CMR(PDF)
Prepared By:Brad Eggleston, Manager, Environmental Control Programs
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
1
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 Amendment One.doc
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S11136318
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
R3 CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
This Amendment No. 1 to contract No. S11136318 (“Contract”) is
entered into ___________, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO
ALTO, a California Charter City ("CITY"), and R3 CONSULTING GROUP,
INC., a California corporation, with offices located at 4811
Chippendale Drive, Suite 708, Sacramento, CA 95841 ("CONSULTANT").
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the
parties for the provision of professional consulting services to
conduct a cost of service study and to prepare an analysis of
revenue and cost allocations, cost of service model, and potential
rate structure in connection with the Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to
increase the scope of services, schedule of performance, and
compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, is hereby
amended to add additional scope as described in Exhibit “A”, as
revised.
SECTION 2. Section 3, SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, first
paragraph is hereby amended to add the following:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full
execution through November 1, 2011 unless terminated earlier
pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement – see revised Exhibit B”
SECTION 3. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, first
paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance
of the Services described in Exhibit “A” as revised, including
both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses,
shall not exceed one hundred twenty-seven thousand nine hundred
fifty-five dollars ($127,955.00). In the event Additional
Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed one hundred thirty-three
thousand one hundred ninety dollars ($133,190.00).
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
1
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
EXHIBIT “A” - REVISED
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1. Document Request
Upon authorization to proceed, R3 will provide the City with a preliminary list of documents in
support of the Cost of Service Study. Requested documents may include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
List of all services and service levels;
Updated Form N-1 if available (from initial proposal);
Operational data from the contracted Collector (e.g., route lists, personnel assignments);
Approved rate schedules;
Operational and administrative components of each rate;
Copy of most recent billing report;
Customer subscription levels by customer rate class;
Allocation methodologies;
City Refuse Fund financial and budgetary reports, including actual revenues and
expenses for the most recent fiscal year;
Contracted Collector financial reports, including actual revenues and expenses for the
most recent fiscal year;
City capital projects expense projections for the five year projection period;
Contracted Collector capital projects expense projections for the five year projection
period;
Contracted Collector equipment replacement schedules for the five year projection
period;
Projected annual customer growth;
Relevant City policies (e.g. Zero Waste), procedures, and regulatory requirements; and
Any other data or information deemed relevant to the project by City staff.
R3 will review the data and information submitted and identify any additional data requirements
or issues for discussion at the Kick Off Meeting (Task 2).
Task 2. Kick Off Meeting
Task 2.1 City Staff
A Kick-Off Meeting will be held within two weeks of receipt of authorization to proceed. The
purpose of the Kick-Off Meeting will be to review and confirm the following:
Project communication protocol and contacts;
Project objectives;
Data availability;
Current rate policies and historical rate issues;
Requirements and coordination of the Proposition 218 compliance process;
Project management and administration details, including;
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
2
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
o Timing of regular communications between R3 and the City project manager;
o Schedule of deliverables;
o Project reporting, invoicing, and documentation standards; and
Additional data needs and any other key issues.
In addition to the above items, a primary objective of the Kick-Off Meeting will be to review and
discuss available data, including but not limited to, the following:
Current and historical City and contracted Collector revenues and expenses;
Current City and contracted Collector cost of service expense allocations;
Growth projections;
Current services and anticipated new programs and/or changes in operations or service
levels.
These discussions will help ensure a successful project by clarifying the objectives and
expectations of the City.
Task 2.2 Contracted Collector
Following the initial session of the Kick-Off Meeting, the Contracted Collector staff will join the
project team to discuss the project and clarify any questions concerning availability of
Contracted Collector data. One of the key items of discussion at this meeting will be the
availability of detail data needed to perform the Cost of Service Analysis as discussed in Task 4.
Task 2.3 Proposition 218 Coordination
In conjunction with the Kick-Off Meeting, R3 will facilitate an initial meeting with City staff
and the City Attorney to discuss Proposition 218 compliance issues.
Task 3. Develop Cost of Service Model
Task 3.1 Stakeholder Meetings
For this Task R3 will individually meet with each of the groups listed below for approximately
one hour to discuss the cost of service study.
GreenWaste of Palo Alto;
Administrative Services Department;
City Public Works Department; and
City Attorneys Office.
Task 3.2 Review Services and Operational Requirements
As part of the development of the Cost of Service Model, R3 will work with City staff to
document the current services provided by the Contracted Collector and City staff and the
associated operational requirements for the cost of service base year (“Base Year”). This will
include documenting the number of accounts and the associated workloads, routes, staffing
levels and other operational factors to the extent this data is available from the Contracted
Collector. The data developed as part of this task will, along with the Task 3.3 (Financial
Baselines), form the basis for Task 4 (Cost of Service Analysis).
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
3
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
As part of this task, R3 will work closely with City staff to identify the following:
Any services currently funded by rate revenue that are not actually used by or
immediately available to the rate payer; and
Any services currently funded by rate revenue that are available to the public in
substantially the same manner as they are to property owners.
Task 3.3 Document Base Year Financial Baselines
R3 will work with City staff to document the financial baselines for the test year. The most
recently completed fiscal year serve as the Base Year and the actual revenues and expenses form
the basis for the cost of service analysis (Task 4).
R3 will document all applicable line item revenue and expenses, fund reserves, capital costs and
any other relevant data for the Base Year from both the City and the contracted Collector. The
documented financial revenue and expense line items will form the “Financial” worksheet of the
Cost of Service Model developed in Task 3.4.
R3 will work with the City and the Franchise Collector to develop a methodology to project
residential and commercial revenues using the census information provided by the City and the
collector. R3 will facilitate up to three meetings with City staff and the Collector to compare and
reconcile the customer data used to develop revenue in the model.
R3 will work with City staff to update the budget data in the City’s financial forecasting model.
To the extent necessary. this data will be updated once per month during the term of the project
Task 3.4 Prepare Cost of Service Model
R3 will use the information developed as part of Tasks 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 to construct a Cost of
Service Model that will be used to perform the Task 4, Cost of Service Analysis and develop the
revised rate structures (Task 4.3.2). The model will be developed using Microsoft Excel and
Visual for Basic Applications (VBA) programming language to enhance its value as a tool for
the City. The model will be designed as an interactive module of the City’s current forecasting
mode. As such it will include the following:
Ability to interact directly with the City’s current forecasting model;
Interactive segments, wherein changes made to financial, operational, or tonnage
calculations are automatically updated in linked cells;
Sensitivity analysis section to allow up to one hundred variables, including solid waste
and recyclable tonnage data and customer migration estimates to be analyzed as single
and multiple components;
Imbedded footnotes in cells to identify the sources of data and methodologies used to
develop the new data;
Color-coded fonts to indicate the items that should be periodically modified or updated;
A cost of service model manual detailing the make up of the model along with operation
and simulation protocols; and
Other components as requested by the City.
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
4
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
The Cost of Service Model will be designed to utilize projected revenues and expenses from the
City’s current forecasting model to present cost of service analysis over a five year projection
period.
A summary sheet will be incorporated into the Model that will allow the City to set and adjust
rates while evaluating the impact in relation to the actual cost of service and compliance with
Proposition 218.
Task 3.5 Rate Stabilization Reserve Format
The City accounts for the rate stabilization reserve (RSR) differently for financial statements
purposes than it does for budgetary purposes. R3 will work with City staff to modify the rate
model to account for the RSR in a manner that is consistent with the budgetary requirements but
can be reconciled to the financial statements. As part of this task, R3 will work with City staff to
determine the best way to present this data as part of the annual projections. R3 will facilitate up
to three meetings with City staff to analyze the current RSR balance and to determine what
adjustments, if any need to be made to the City’s financial model to properly account for the
RSR.
Task 3.6 Rate Stabilization Reserve Funding Scenarios
R3 will modify the financial model to assist the City in developing up to three rate stabilization
reserve funding scenarios. These scenarios will focus on the development of the timing of the
rate adjustments needed to bring the rate stabilization reserve to an appropriate balance using the
three timelines proposed by the City.
The results of this analysis will be presented to City staff for evaluation and review. R3 will also
present the scenarios at two additional meetings with senior staff and/or City Council
committees. Based on input from the City, the financial model and the Cost of Service Model
will be modified to incorporate the rate stabilization reserve funding into the annual rate
projections.
Task 4. Cost of Service Analysis
The financial baselines, operation requirements, reserve requirements and other data developed
in Task 3 will form the basis for the cost of service analysis. The cost of service allocations will
be developed based on a combination of specific assignment of direct expenses (e.g., labor and
collection vehicle costs associated with each collection service, disposal and processing
expenses, etc.) and allocation of indirect expenses (e.g., management and administrative
overhead) using appropriate allocation factors. The actual cost of service analysis will be
conducted using the Cost of Service Model developed in Task 3.4.
It should be noted that cost of service analysis can be conducted on the following two levels:
Level 1 – Line of Business Cost of Service Analysis. The analysis of revenues and
expenses among lines of business segment (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) with
the intent of balancing revenues and expenses to eliminate any subsidies that may exist
across lines of business (e.g., commercial rates subsidizing residential rates), and
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
5
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
Level 2 – Service Type and Level Cost of Service Analysis. The analysis of costs and
rates for each service type and service level within a line of business to determine the
extent to which an individual rate reflects the cost of the associated service level (e.g., the
cost to provide refuse service (a service type) using a four yard container one time per
week (a service level) compared to the cost to provide refuse service using a one yard
container four times per week). R3 is aware that the costs of providing multiple types of
service are funded through a single rate. For example, the cost of providing residential
refuse, recycling and green waste collection may be funded through a single rate.
However, in performing this analysis R3 will, to the extent possible, develop costs for
each of the service types regardless of how each one is funded.
In order to meet the goals of the City R3 will conduct the analysis in two phases.
Task 4.1 Cost of Service by Line Business
In Task 4.1, R3 will perform a cost of service analysis at the line of business level to determine
overall compliance with Proposition 218 for each line of business segment. Proposition 218
includes the following substantive requirements:
The revenues generated may not exceed the cost of the service for which the fee is
charged;
No property owner’s fee may exceed his or her proportionate share of costs for the
property related service;
Local governments may not divert property-related fee revenues to pay for other
governmental programs; and
Local governments may not impose a property-related fee for a service not immediately
available to the property owner.
This will entail working with the Contracted Collector and the City to determine the costs
associated with each of the line of business segments. R3 will utilize the financial and
operational records of the Contracted Collector and the City to the extent that those records
segregate expenses by line of business segment. For those expenses that are shared between line
of business segments or not segregated in the financial and operational records R3 will work
with the City and the Contracted Collector to develop appropriate methods of allocating each
item.
Based on the results of the initial analysis, adjustments will be proposed to the costs associated
with each line of business segment to eliminate any subsidies that may exist between any of the
line of business segments and to properly balance each segment.
Once each line of business segment is properly balanced R3 will evaluate the cost of service of
each service type and service level within each line of business segment as part of Task 4.2.
Task 4.2 Cost of Service by Service Type and Service Level
Once again, this will entail working with the Contracted Collector and the City to determine the
costs associated with each of the service types and levels within each line of business segment.
Based on R3’s review of the City’s financial records and prior experience with the Contracted
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
6
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
Collector, R3 does not anticipate that the financial records will be segregated between service
types and levels. Instead, R3 will work with the City and the Contracted Collector to develop
allocation factors for the various cost components of each service level. For example, in
developing the costs of service for residential refuse service R3 will be able to obtain the actual
costs for the different sizes of containers. However, to obtain the cost of disposal, R3 will need
to allocate all disposal costs to each service level. One way of doing this would be to:
Determine the total available capacity for each service level, by multiplying the number
of customers subscribing to each service level by the capacity in gallons of that service
level, (e.g., 20, 32, 64, 96);
Determine the total available capacity of all the service levels;
Calculate what percentage of total capacity each service level represents; and
Multiply the total residential disposal costs by the percentage of capacity of each service
level.
This methodology assumes that the City or the Contracted Collector can provide an accurate
customer census by service level.
Based on R3’s meeting with the Contracted Collector as part of Task 2.2, R3 will develop an
allocation matrix that sets forth the major cost categories (e.g., labor, benefits, fleet costs, fuel,
depreciation, disposal, etc.) and the methodology to allocate those costs. R3 will then meet with
the City and the Contracted Collector to discuss the methodologies and confirm the availability
of the required data.
As part of this task, R3 proposes to specifically address the following questions:
What is the total cost of services provided to the customers of each line of business
segment, each service type within the line of business segment, each service level within
each service type, and the total revenue required to cover each set of costs?
What services are funded by rate revenue received from the customers of each line of
business segment?
What services are being funded by revenues received from fees not paid directly by the
customer (e.g., at the landfill)?
Is each rate proportional to the cost of service attributable to the parcel to which the
service is provided?
Task 4.3 Evaluate Fees and Develop Revised Fee Structure
4.3.1 Evaluate Fees
R3 will use the cost of service data developed as part of Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 to evaluate the fees
listed in Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2 and R-3. As part of the evaluation, R3 will review the
components of each fee and work with City staff and the City Attorney to determine the
applicability of each component and the fee as a whole to meet the requirements of Proposition
218. As part of this task R3 will also work with the City to explore alternatives to the existing
rate structures, such as offering an optional ‘package’ of services to residential customers,
unbundling rates and providing additional incentives for recycling.
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
7
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
4.3.2 Develop Revised Rate Structure Options
Based on the results of R3’s rate stabilization reserve analysis (Tasks 3.5 and 3.6), cost of
service analysis (Task 4.1 and 4.2) and the evaluation of utility fees (Task 4.3.1) R3 will make
recommendations for specific revisions to the City’s existing rate structure to assure compliance
with Proposition 218.
This task will include recommendations based on the results of the line of business cost of
service study (Task 4.1), and more detailed recommendations and options based on the results of
the service type and service level cost of service study (Task 4.2). The recommendations related
to the results of the service type and service level cost of service study (Task 4.2) will include
options that focus on two major areas: compliance with Proposition 218 and encourage Zero
Waste goals by incentivizing diversion.
R3 will also conduct a review of the current commercial account distribution by service level
and make an assessment of that distribution in light of the relative rate relationships. Ideally,
from an operational efficiency standpoint, each account would be provided with appropriate
storage volume in order to limit service frequency to one time per week. This would allow the
City to meet the weekly service volume requirements with the least amount of resources at the
lowest possible cost to the system users.
As part of this task, R3 will review the “Volume-Frequency” commercial rate relationships to
determine if they provide sufficient incentives to reduce frequency. In addition, R3 will review
the current commercial account distribution profile to determine if accounts appear to be
responding to any existing rate incentives. R3 will also provide a comparison of the existing
“Volume-Frequency” relationship and other aspects of the City’s commercial rate structure to
the rate structures of other similar municipal operations in California.
4.3.3 Develop Rate Implementation Options
R3 will work with City staff to develop options to implementing the required rate adjustments
developed as part of this subtask. Those options will include implementation over either a single
year or multiple years. As part of this task R3 will develop up to three funding scenarios for
discussion with City staff and presentation to other City officials.
Task 5. Establish Service / Rate Benchmarks
R3 will survey at least five local municipal government agencies that provide municipal solid
waste and recycling services to establish collection service and service rate benchmarks. The list
of agencies to be surveyed will be developed in conjunction with the City.
The survey will review cans or carts, bin, and drop-boxes for residential, multi-family and
commercial customers. The survey will also include other questions the City identifies as
valuable to comparing the refuse rate and services. Information requested may include:
Rates;
Services;
Date of last rate revision;
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
8
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit A Revised.doc
Date of next rate increase;
Community size (accounts);
Special pick-up charges (e.g., surcharge specials, hourly rates, lock fees);
Disposal fees;
HHW fees;
Other services included in the rates;
Governmental and regulatory fees;
Rate setting methodology;
Applicability of Proposition 218; and
Other questions identified by the City.
Task 6. Meetings and Reports
Task 6.1 Meetings
During the project, R3 will hold weekly teleconferences with City staff to discuss progress. In
addition, R3 will attend up to nine meetings as follows:
One Kick-Off Meeting (Task 2);
Four stakeholder meetings (Task 3.1);
Three staff and Franchise Contractor meetings (Task 3.3)
Three rate stabilization reserve meetings (Task 3.5)
Three rate stabilization reserve funding meetings (Task 3.6)
Two City Council meetings; and
Two additional meetings as determined by City staff.
R3 will be responsible for preparing any necessary agenda and meeting summaries for all
meetings except the City Council meetings. R3 will assist City staff in preparing the staff report
and PowerPoint presentations for the City Council Meetings.
Task 6.2 Reports
6.2.1 Draft Cost of Service Analysis Report
Findings and recommendations will be organized in a Draft Report and submitted to City staff in
an electronic format for review and comment.
6.2.2 Final Cost of Service Analysis Report
The City will provide one electronic copy of the Draft Report reflecting all the City’s comments
which R3 will incorporate into a Final Report. R3 will then provide one electronic copy of the
Final Report to the City.
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
1
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit B Revised.doc
EXHIBIT “B” – REVISED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased
by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as
all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the
notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion
No. of Weeks
From NTP
1. Kick Off Meeting 2
2. Develop Cost of Service Model 58
3. Cost of Service Analysis and Rate Structures 63
4. Reports 63
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
1
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit C Revised.doc
EXHIBIT “C” – REVISED
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$127,955.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $133,190.00. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $127,955.00 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $5,235.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $2,950
(Information and Data Review)
Task 2 $2,950
(Project Kick-off Meeting)
Task 3 $65,438
(Develop Cost of Service Model)
Task 4 $38,547
(Cost of Service Analysis)
Task 5 $5,150
(Establish Service/Rate Benchmarks)
Task 6 $12,920
(Meetings and Reports)
Sub-total Basic Services $127,955
AMENDMENT No. 1
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
2
E:\Files from H DRIVE\RFP Files\RFP136318 Solid Waste Utility Rate and Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study\Docs related to Amendment
One\Contract S11136318 R3 CONSULTING - Exhibit C Revised.doc
Reimbursable Expenses $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $127,955
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $5,235
Maximum Total Compensation $133,190
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone cellular phone, facsimile transmission and postage charges are
reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $100.00 shall be approved in advance
by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services,
schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1795)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/6/2011
June 06, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1795)
Summary Title: Eshoo, Simitian, Gordon letter
Title: Approval of Letter to Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, Senator Joe Simitian
and Assembly Member Rich Gordon
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Rail Committee to communicate with the
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) cities, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and
related interests as necessary, regarding the City’s support of Congresswoman Anna G.
Eshoo/Senator Joe Simitian/Assembly Member Rich Gordon’s April 18th, 2011 joint statement
on high speed rail (HSR).
Executive Summary
Congresswoman Eshoo, State Senator Simitian and State Assembly Member Gordon issued a
joint press release in April concerning high speed rail. This press release identified key policy
positions on high speed rail (HSR), (see chart summary included below).
The policies include: abandoning project environmental impact report (EIR) planning for the
larger high speed rail project planned for build-out by 2035, being responsive to local concerns,
eliminating the 4-track HSR option, rejecting the aerial viaduct option entirely and asserting
that the HSR system should remain on the existing Caltrain right-of-way. A summary of the
Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon recommendations and the City of Palo Alto City Council recommended
policy position.
June 06, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1795)
Eshoo
Simitian Palo Alto
Gordon City Council
Policy Position 4/18/2011 6/7/2011
Abandon EIR planning for larger project Yes Yes
over 25-year time horizon to 2035
Be responsive to local concerns Yes Yes
Eliminate 4-track option Yes Yes
Reject Aerial Viaduct option entirely Yes Yes
System should remain on Caltrain ROW Yes Yes
Background and Discussion
The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) heard testimony at their meeting May 5th
based in part on the Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon joint press release and additional testimony from
Peninsula cities. The Authority then took action directing their staff to postpone further
planning work for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. The Authority took this action to
gather more information on the position of Peninsula area cities concerning HSR. The City
Council Rail Committee met May 26th and voted to endorse the policy positions in the
Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon press release and asked staff to bring this item to the City Council for
consideration and review. The City Council Rail Committee support reflects the alignment of
the policy positions of the Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon press release with the City Council May 17,
2010 adopted Role and Guiding Principles of the High Speed Rail Committee (see attached
principles).
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Letter June 7, 2011 Eshoo, Simitian, Gordon (DOC)
·Attachment B: Eshoo Simitian Gordon Statement (PDF)
·Attachment C: Guiding principles (PDF)
Prepared By:Katie Whitley, Administrative Assistant
June 06, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1795)
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
June 7,2011
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo, 14th Congressional District
698 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, California 94301
The Honorable Joe Simitian, 11th Senate District
160 Town & Country Village
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Honorable Rich Gordon, 21st Assembly District
5050 El Camino Real, Suite 117
Los Altos, CA 94022
Subject:Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo/Senator Joe Simitian/Assembly Member Rich
Gordon April 18th 2011 Statement of High-Speed Rail and City of Palo Alto
letter of support
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assembly Member Gordon:
This letter is being sent to you to express Palo Alto’s support for your joint statement made on
High Speed Rail (HSR). The issuance of this press release and the policy positions,taken in the
release,are supported by the City. A summary of your recommendations and our support is
provided below:
Eshoo
Simitian Palo Alto
Gordon City Council
Policy Position 4/18/2011 6/7/2011
Abandon EIR planning for larger project Yes Yes
over 25-year time horizon to 2035
Be responsive to local concerns Yes Yes
Eliminate 4-track option Yes Yes
Reject Aerial Viaduct option entirely Yes Yes
System should remain on Caltrain ROW Yes Yes
Your joint statement and policy positions identified are in alignment with Palo Alto’s Role and
Guiding Principles (attached for reference) of the High Speed Rail Committee adopted May 17,
2010. We sincerely appreciate your leadership on this very important issue.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff, other peninsula area cities and
agencies, federal and state agencies and related parties for a project that is consistent with our
adopted Guiding Principles. If this project is to be built it must be done right. Your joint
statement is another step in helping to support this key principle.
Sincerely yours,
Sid Espinosa
Mayor
c:Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Manager
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Joe Szabo
Governor Jerry Brown
Senator Alan Lowenthal, Chair Senate Transportation Committee
Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee
Supervisor Liz Kniss
Curt Pringle, Chairperson, California High Speed Rail Authority
Chief Executive Officer Roelof van Ark, California High Speed Rail Authority
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC)
Attachment
·Role and Guiding Principles of the High Speed Rail Committee of the Palo Alto City Council adopted May 17,
2010
Eshoo~ Simitian, Gordon Statement on High-Speed Rail I State Senator Joe Simitiari Page 1 of2 . '
ESHOO, SIMITIAN, GORDON STATEMENT ON HIGH-SPEED RAIL
Since the passage of Proposition lA in 2008, each of us has expressed our support for "high-speed rail done right,"
by which we mean a genuinely statewide system that makes prudent use of hmlted pubhc funds and which IS
responsive to legitimate concerns about the impact of high-speed rail on our cities, towns, neighborhoods and homes.
To date, however, the California High Speed Rail Authority has failed to develop and describe such a system for the
Peninsula and South Bay. For that reason, we have taken it upon ourselves today to set forth some basic parameters
for what "high-speed rail done right" looks like in our region.
We start with the premise that for the Authority to succeed in its statewide mission it must be sensitive and responsive
to local concerns about local impacts. Moreover, it is undeniable that funding will be severely limited at both the state
and national levels for the foreseeable future.
Much of the projected cost for the San Jose to San Francisco leg of the project is driven by the fact that the Authority
has, to date, proposed what is essentially a second rail system for the Peninsula and South Bay, unnecessarily
duplicating existing usable infrastructure. Even if such a duplicative system could be constructed without adverse
impact along the CalTrain corridor, and we do not believe it can, the cost of such duplication simply cannot be
justified.
Ifwe can barely find the funds to do high speed rail right, we most certainly cannot find the funds to do high speed
rail wrong.
Accordingly, we call upon the High-Speed Rail Authority and our local CalTrain Joint Powers Board to develop
plans for a blended system that integrates high-speed rail with a 21st Century CalTrain.
To that end:
• We explicitly reject the notion of high-speed rail running from San Jose to San Francisco on an elevated structure or
"viaduct"; and we call on the High-Speed Rail Authority to eliminate further consideration of an aerial option;
• We fully expect that high-speed rail running from San Jose to San Francisco can and should remain within the
existing CalTrain right of way; and,
• Third and finally, consistent with a proje~ of this more limited scope, the Authority should abandon its preparation
of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for a phased project of larger dimensions over a 25 year timeframe.
Continuing to plan for a project of this scope in the face oflimited funding and growing community resistance is a
fool's errand; and is particularly ill-3dvised when predicated on ridership projections that are less than credible.
Within the existing right-of-way, at or below grade,a single blended system could allow high-speed rail arriving in
San Jose to continue north in a seamless fashion as part of a 21st Century CalTrain (using some combination of
electrification, positive train control, new rolling stock andlor other appropriate upgrades) while maintaining the
currently projected speeds and travel time for high-speed rail.
The net result of such a system would be a substantially upgraded co~uter service for Peninsula and South Bay
residents capable of accommodating high-speed rail from San Jose to San Francisco.
All of this is possible, but only if the High-Speed Rail Authority takes this opportunity to rethink its direction.
Over the course of the past 18 months the Authority has come under considerable criticism from the California
http://www.senatorsimitian.com/entry/eshoo _ simitian ~ordon _-statement_on _high-speed _r... 5112/2011
E~hoo, Simitian, Gordon Statement on High-Speed Rail I State Senator Joe Simitian Page 2 of2
Legislative Analyst's Office, the Bureau of State Audits, the California Office of the Inspector General, the
Authority's own Peer Review Group and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at
Berkeley. The Authority would do well to take these critiques to heart, and to make them the basis for a renewed and
improved effort.
Frankly, a great many of our constituents are convinced that the High-Speed Rail Authority has already wandered so
far afield that it is too late for a successful course correction. We hope the Authority can prove otherwise.·
An essential first step is a rethinking Of the Authority's plans for the Peninsula and South Bay. A commitment to a
project which eschews an aerial viaduct, stays within the existing right-of-way, sets aside any notion of a phased
project expansion at a later date, and incorporates the necessary upgrades for CalTrain -which would produce a truly
blended system along the CalTrain corridor-is the essential next step.
http://www.senatorsimitian.com/entry/eshoo _ simitian ~ordon _statemenC on _high-speed _I... 5112/2011
ROLE AND GUIDING PRINICIPLES OF THE HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE
OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
Adopted
May 17, 2010
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure, the
primary purpose of which is to develop high speed rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San
Francisco. The High Speed Rail Authority has decided that the route HSR will take from San Jose
to San Francisco is along the Caltrain right of way (ROW), including the portion of the ROW that
runs through Palo Alto. However, the Environmental Impact Report used by the Authority in
making this decision has been de‐certified per court order. Many issues, such as the vertical
alignment of the HSR, remain undecided. Recognizing that HSR could have many impacts on
Palo Alto, some quite negative, and that swift City action might be needed in many
circumstances the City Council on May 18, 2009 created an ad hoc High Speed Rail
Subcommittee of four Council Members, (since changed to a standing committee and renamed
the High Speed Rail Committee). The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which
allowed the Committee to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the
full Council.
During the past year the Committee‐‐‐ indeed the entire community‐‐‐ have learned a great
deal about HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place. The City Council therefore,
adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and actions of the
Committee:
Role and Authority of the High Speed Rail Committee
The Committee shall advise the City Council on HSR and related rail transit matters and
provide the community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such issues.
The Committee shall keep the full Council informed on a regular basis.
The Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City on HSR and related rail
transit matters when there is not sufficient time to refer a particular issue to the full City
Council before action is needed; however, the Committee shall forward their decision to the
Council for final action if the Committee determines that it is feasible to do within the time
available. Such actions by the Committee shall include, but not be limited to, testimony
before the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Congress and other pertinent governmental
agencies and advocacy (oral or written) pertaining to pending or desired legislation. Such
actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the following policies of the City:
Guiding Principles
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same basis with
respect to vertical alignment impacts.
4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco
portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and
reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains dubious
and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an independent
ridership study under its direction and control.
6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office and State Auditor which
question the viability and accuracy of the Authority’s Business Plan on such matters as
the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources, project management and
operations of HSR.
7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the Peer
Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR.
8. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the transit
corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and
strategies of our Comprehensive Plan.
9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain
that is effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail Program and the High
Speed Rail Authority.
10. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to
allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach
to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions.
11. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide realistic renderings of the various
alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an understanding
of the sound and vibrations.
12. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
13. Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present plans but
independent of HSR.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR
issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium.
15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates Council‐adopted written
comments to the Authority and its Representatives.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1776)
Office of the City Clerk
City Council CAO Report
Meeting Date: 6/6/2011 Report Type: Consent Calendar
Title: Approval of an Amendment to the Agreement with Sherry L.
Lund Associates in an Amount of $7,450 for Mid-Year Check-
In and Alignment for Council Appointed Officers, and Review
and Approval of Revised Criteria for City Attorney
Performance Evaluation
From: Donna Grider, City Clerk
On April 27, 2011 the Council Appointed Officers Committee met to review proposals from
Sherry Lund for completion of the annual performance evaluations for the Council Appointed
Officers (CAOs). On May 9 the City Council approved the contract with Sherry Lund for the
annual CAO performance evaluations. The consideration of mid-year check-ins was continued
until the full Council could participate in the discussion and decision.
Mid-Year Check-In and Alignment Recommendation
The Committee discussed prior years’ intention of conducting mid-year meetings with CAOs
including the fact that it has never happened for various reasons including Council member
workload. The additional time with CAOs was mentioned as a reasonable expense to help
ensure the City is being managed consistent with determined goals and also provide ability to
adjust as demands change. At least two CAO’s have actively requested this additional time with
Council as a whole. A description of the process can be found in #3 in the Lund proposal. The
Committee voted 3-0 (Councilmember Scharff absent) to recommend that the full Council
approve $7,450 for this additional service.
This action by the Council would authorize the Mayor to enter into an amendment to the
contract with Sherry L. Lund and Associates in an amount of $7,450 (subject to 10% standard
contingency) for facilitation of Council Appointed Officer Mid-Year Check-ins. The 2012
proposed budget already has $30,000 allocated for CAO evaluations. The Council would need
to direct the City Manager to add $5,500 to the Council's budget if they elected to move
forward with the Mid-Year Check-ins. That amount would be reduced by the $1500 if the
Council elected to complete the process on schedule and also potentially by either or both
contract contingency amounts.
Page 2
Revised City Attorney Evaluation Criteria
As described in Attachment B Memo from Sherry Lund, it is typical for a new CAO to have some
recommended revisions to their performance criteria as occurred with the current City
Manager when he joined the City of Palo Alto. The proposed revisions reflect interviews with
the new City Attorney and subsequent input by Lund, Stump, and Holman. Minor revisions to
the attached redline version are reflected in the final version. The revised criteria are
recommended for your review and recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
• May 9 2011 Lund Report (PDF)
• Sherry Lund Attorney Cover Letter (DOCX)
• Clean Revised Attorney Review Criteria (DOCX)
• Redlined Attorney Review Criteria (DOCX)
• May 9 Excerpted Council Minutes (DOC)
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
May 9, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Agreement with Sherry L. Lund Associates in an Amount
of $37,875 (Subject to Potential $1,500 Discount) for Completion of
Annual Council Appointed Officer Performance Reviews
TO:City Council Colleagues
FROM:CAO Committee Chair Holman
DATE:May 2, 2011
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement with Sherry L. Lund Associates in an Amount
of $37,875 (Subject to Potential $1,500 Discount) for Completion of Annual
Council Appointed Officer Performance Reviews
On April 27, 2011 the Council Appointed Officers Committee met to review proposals from
Sherry Lund for completion of the annual performance evaluations for the Council Appointed
Officers (CAOs).
CAO Annual Evaluations
In consideration of the current status of CAOs, the recommended contract includes performance
reviews for City Clerk and City Manager, refining and setting performance goals for City
Attorney (consistent with Attorney contract), and assessment of Acting City Auditor and staff to
get a better understanding of the functioning and existing skills in the department. The
Committee voted 3-0 (Councilmember Scharff absent) to recommend that the full Council
approve an agreement with Ms. Lund in an amount of $25,500, including expenses and subject
to a $1,500 discount if the Council completes the evaluation process prior to August 2.
Additional Recommended CAO Evaluations Input
The Committee additionally considered the benefits of adding staff member input to CAO
performance evaluations. As part of the discussion it was determined beneficial and preferred to
include this option, to provide more of a ‘360’ approach especially in light of the fact the Council
members are predominantly off site. A description of the process can be found in #2 in the Lund
proposal. The Committee voted 3-0 (Councilmember Scharff absent) to recommend that the full
Council approve $4,925 for this additional service.
Mid-Year Check-In and Alignment Recommendation
The Committee discussed prior years’ intention of conducting mid-year meetings with CAOs
Updated: 5/4/2011 10:26 AM by Donna Grider Page 2
including the fact that it has never happened for various reasons including Council member
workload. The additional time with CAOs was mentioned as a reasonable expense to help
ensure the City is being managed consistent with determined goals and also provide ability to
adjust as demands change. A description of the process can be found in #3 in the Lund
proposal. The Committee voted 3-0 (Councilmember Scharff absent) to recommend that the full
Council approve $7,450 for this additional service.
As part of the Committee discussion, members acknowledged the importance of the $1,500
discount offered by Ms. Lund. The Committee also recommended that the funding for the
contract be added to the Council's budget for FY2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
The CAO Committee recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract
with Sherry L. Lund and Associates in an amount of $37,875 for facilitation of Council Appointed
Officer evaluations. The 2012 proposed budget already has $30,000 allocated for CAO
evaluations. The Council would need to direct the City Manager to add $7,875 to the Council's
budget if they elected to move forward with the entire proposal; this amount would be reduced
to $6,375 if the Council elected to complete the process by August 2.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Revised Lund proposal 4-30-11 w CAO Comm Input.doc (DOCX)
·CAO 4-27-11 ACTION (DOC)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 5/4/2011 10:26 AM by Donna Grider Page 3
247 La Cuesta Drive
Portola Valley, CA 94028
(650) 619-5500 fax (650) 854-9702
sherrylund@aol.com
April 30, 2011
The Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:
The following is a proposal summary that incorporates the approved actions of the April 27 Council/
CAO Committee.
Introduction
The four CAO’s control the major financial and human resources in executing the Council’s vision and
priorities. Performance evaluation is an important opportunity for CAO’s to get Council’s unified feedback
on the past year. More importantly, it is the only opportunity to get unified feedback about expectations of
performance going forward. Focus, clarity and alignment are critical to deploying financial and human
capital efficiently and effectively; they are particularly critical when resources are limited.
Council and CAO’s need to be closely aligned about performance expectations and how those resources
are deployed. Goals and expectations need to be clear and need to stay aligned.
1. 2010-2011 Annual CAO Performance Review Cycle
This year‘s proposed review cycle will have three elements:
A.The City Manager and City Clerk will go through a normal year-end performance review,
following the same format as last year. The CAO committee has asked that CAO’s be specifically
asked for input on each others’ performance, as part of their conversations with Consultant. This
feedback would not appear in the written summary, but would be raised in the closed session
reviews.
B.The City Attorney will have been on the job for 90+ days. While it will be too early to do a full-
scale performance review in July, the timing of the review cycle will be ideal for accomplishing the
following objectives:
§Refine performance criteria with Attorney and Council input;
§Confirm alignment on expectations and make early course corrections; and
§Set performance goals for FYI 2011-2012.
Sherry L. Lund Associates Proposal: 2011-2012 CAO Performance Management Page 2
C.In lieu of a performance review, the CAO Committee would like an assessment of the Acting City
Auditor and staff.There has been significant transition in this office in the last two years, with
the departure of the previous Auditor and some new hires. Finding the right permanent Auditor
with the technical skills, the staff leadership skills, the broader leadership skills, and
understanding of Palo Alto culture will be very important.
Benefits
For components A, B, and C:
§Assurance that the City’s financial resources and employees are being deployed in a way
that is aligned with Council goals, that CAO’s are clear about mutual expectations, and
that there is accountability for results.
For City Manager and City Clerk reviews (A):
§A high quality review process and sound methodology.
§A process that allows Council to focus their time and energy on providing quality
feedback and direction while the consultant gathers and rolls up feedback, prepares
agendas and documents for meetings, manages the whole project and provides technical
assistance.
For Attorney’s goal-setting (B):
§Council and Attorney have clear, agreed-upon goals for assessing performance and for
going forward.
For the Auditor’s office review (C):
§Skilled, third party assessment, gathering feedback from the entire Audit staff.
§Information that allows Council to enter the recruitment process with a deeper
understanding of the whole Auditor’s office.
§Additional useful information, should the Acting City Auditor be an applicant for the
permanent position.
Timeline
§May:Detailed project schedule and preparation; begin work to refine Attorney review criteria,
and Auditor/staff assessment.
§June:Most Council’s input on performance would be provided.
§July:Closed session review meetings, subject to mutual availability and Council’s
meeting schedule.
Cost: $25,500, which includes all expenses,with a $1,500 discount if review process is
completed by August 2, 2011. Note that Council must be willing to be available in the above
timeline to provide input and to meet in closed session to achieve this deadline.
2.Staff Member Input for CAO Annual Performance Reviews
Purpose
Council members typically have the opportunity to see examples of CAO leadership in venues such
as community meetings and at Council meetings. Councils also need to hold CAO’s accountable for
leadership of staff, but usually have little visibility into that aspect of leadership.
Gathering feedback from staff members must be done carefully and interpreted in context. While all
feedback is useful, it must be weighed in light of a) employee performance (e.g., is employee a strong
performer or someone who is on a performance improvement plan); and b) whether employee and
CAO expectations of each other are aligned with generally good management practice.
Sherry L. Lund Associates Proposal: 2011-2012 CAO Performance Management Page 3
Process Overview
CAO’s will be contacted to provide context for employee feedback. Input will be gathered from the
direct reports of the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney through a combination of some
simple survey questions and follow-up phone calls. Staff feedback will be anonymous to CAO’s and
to Council but not to the Consultant. Council members will receive a brief (1-2 page) summary to
inform their annual review feedback to CAO’s.
Benefit
§Provide feedback to Council on CAO’s leadership of their staff members (a part of leadership
typically not visible to Council).
Timeline
§Process must begin as early as possible in May (and by mid-May at the latest)to provide
input to Council to use in their packets by June.
Cost: $ 4,925, which includes all expenses.
3.Mid-Year Check-In and Alignment Discussions
Purpose
Not only is it important for Council and Staff to be aligned on performance goals, it is important for
them to stay aligned. When a manager reports to a single boss, update discussions happen
frequently in the course of business. When a manager reports to nine bosses, a year is a long time
between those discussions. Over the year’s time, there may be new issues that result in a new
goal, or eliminate or modify a previous goal. There may be misalignments in expectations that
need discussion or mid-course correction.
Council has discussed the mid-year check-in option for the last few years, and even set the intention to
make them happen. However, the ongoing press of addressing critical City issues has demonstrated
that these discussions, realistically, are unlikely to happen without external assistance to gather
feedback, create agendas, and manage the process. It takes preparation to result in a crisp agenda
and discussion among ten people (nine Council members plus CAO).
In 2011-2012, it is anticipated that mid-year check-in discussions will be scheduled with City
Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Depending on the timing of hiring the City Auditor, the timing
may be just right for the same refinement of criteria, goal-setting, and early feedback process with the
Auditor that was recommended for the Attorney after 90 days.
Following are some highlights of the mid-year check-in process:
§This is much simpler and more streamlined than the annual review.These discussions will
not be a detailed point-by-point review of the annual performance criteria, involving long
documents. Consultant will:
o Gather input from Council and CAO’s in short (30-45 min.) phone interviews;
o Provide a brief (perhaps 1-2 page summary) summary in advance of discussions;
o Create an agenda that points to the critical few issues (perhaps 2 or 3), allowing
Council and CAO’s to have a focused and productive discussion.
§If advance information points to no need for a discussion for a particular CAO (no issues to raise
by the CAO and no concerns by Council), that information will be shared with Council. Check-
ins will not be automatically scheduled if there is no need.
Benefits
§Council has the opportunity to provide mid-course correction to CAO’s.
§CAO’s have the opportunity to raise performance-based questions with the entire Council.
Sherry L. Lund Associates Proposal: 2011-2012 CAO Performance Management Page 4
§Both Council and CAO’s have the opportunity to address a misalignment.
§A goal can be added, removed, or revised, based on emergent issues.
Timeline
§Late November: Collect feedback.
§December: Convene closed session discussions.
Cost:$7,450.00, which includes all expenses.
Client Responsibilities
In order to support the success of the project, Client agrees to:
§Assure involved parties a) are available for one-on-one and group meetings; and b) complete
evaluations on time in order to meet project milestones.
§Identify an internal liaison that can schedule appointments and provide support in getting
evaluation items on Council agendas.
§Provide meeting space and A-V equipment required.
§Commit to a professional and respectful process.
Cost Assumptions
The following assumptions have been considered in pricing this proposal:
§There is no compensation work required this year.
§Meetings missed without 24 hours notice and re-work that result from missed meetings and
deadlines will be billed beyond the quoted project fee at discounted public sector rate of $250/hr.
(private sector rate is $375/hr.).
Consultant Qualifications
I believe my skills and experience have been a good match for this work, as I offer:
§An insider’s understanding of City culture and citizen expectations with the outsider’s
ability to be fully objective about the process and relationships.
§Deep and broad experience in performance management (including executive evaluation),
executive coaching, negotiation, interpersonal communication, rewards and recognition,
and career development –all important components of this project.
§Thirty-five years experience in organizational consulting--with twenty-three years consulting
experience in my own firm—for a broad variety of organizations in the public and private sector:
o Public sector/non-profit experience examples include:Cities of Fremont, Santa Rosa,
Dublin, San Ramon, Sonoma, Mission Viejo, Tracy, Fairfield, Union City, CA; plus the City
of Tualatin, OR; Counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and Riverside,CA;
BAAQMD, Carnegie Mellon University (Provost), the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation,
the Council on Foundations, S. H. Cowell Foundation, and the University of California.
o Global private sector examples include:Intel, HP, Acco Brands, Cisco Systems,
Seagate, The Gap, Levi Strauss, Driscoll’s, Xoma, Genelabs, among many others.
This broad experience allows me to collect best practices from many sources and to avoid getting locked into
the paradigms and traditions of a single type of organization.
Next Steps
Upon acceptance of this proposal by the CAO Committee and Council, the next steps are to:
1.Execute a contract per your internal procedure.
2.Develop a project schedule that is based on availability of all parties; revise it, as necessary, with
Council at the earliest meeting possible. Please note that a schedule cannot be confirmed until the
contracting process is complete.
Sherry L. Lund Associates Proposal: 2011-2012 CAO Performance Management Page 5
I would be very pleased to work with the Council and the CAO’s again on your performance management
processes. Please let me know if I may provide additional information.
Best regards,
Sherry Lund
Principal
1
COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICER COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
April 27, 2011
Chairperson Holman called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. in the Human Resources
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present:Espinosa, Holman (Chair),Schmid
Absent:Scharff
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1.Discussion of Contract and Proposed Changes for City Council Approval of
Council Appointed Officer (CAO) Evaluation Consultant Contract with Sherry
Lund and Associates.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa, to agree
to do annual evaluation reports as described by Ms. Lund at approximately $25.5k
and include formal evaluations of the City Clerk and City Manager,and an
intermediate update on the City Attorney,and a tentative evaluation with the
Auditor’s Office.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to
include a mid-year check-in for the Council Appointed Officers.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 3-0, Scharff absent
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Scharff absent
2
2.Interview of Recruitment Firms (City Auditor) and Recommendation to City
Council.
NO MOTION
3.Discussion of CAO Interview and Hiring Process.
NO MOTION
4.Consideration of an Exit Interview of the City Auditor (Brouchoud).
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
247 La Cuesta Drive
Portola Valley, CA 94028
(650) 854-0540 fax (650) 854-9702
sherrylund@aol.com
TO: Palo Alto City Council
FROM: Sherry Lund
Date: May 27, 2011
RE: Recommended Change in Criteria for City Attorney
Performance Evaluation
Dear Councilmembers:
It is customary to make some adjustments in the performance evaluation criteria when a new CAO comes
on board. These changes reflect both 1) Evolving changes in the skill set and emphasis that Council sets
out to find when they conduct a recruitment; and 2) The fact that there is more than a single way to be
effective in a job. Different CAO’s bring different orientations to their work. Please also note that this
criteria is not intended to be a comprehensive description of the job, nor are categories intended to limit
feedback that might be provided.
Ms. Stump and I have agreed on the revised draft evaluation form for the City Attorney. Most of the
changes are in the Technical Competence and Professional Development section with a few in the Talent
Management section.
We are seeking Council’s approval of these revisions.
Thank you for your assistance.
Page 1
City Attorney Performance Evaluation – City of Palo Alto
Employee: Review Period:
Council Member:
Note: Continue hard copy comments on back or attach pages, if needed.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
1. 2010-2011 Development Goals – set
with Council at last review
(See attached self-assessment of goal completion)
Comments:
N.A. – no previous goals as new hire.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
2. Technical Competence and
Professional Development
The City Attorney:
▪ Demonstrates an understanding of the City’s business operations and goals.
▪ Provides legal advice to Council, the City Manager, and City management staff that
is timely, accurate, understandable, and usable.
▪ Remains neutral with respect to policy/political matters.
▪ Identifies alternatives to advance the goals of Council/CM/department heads/staff,
while reducing legal risk. Proactively identifies legal issues and risks.
▪ Identifies and resolves issues at the earliest feasible opportunity.
▪ Reviews and manages City lawsuits and claims.
▪ Collaborates effectively with City Manager and department directors to resolve City
legal issues.
▪ Engages in professional development/learning activities to keep abreast of new
developments in her field and to continue to build skills (see summary of professional
development time spent during performance period in self-evaluation).
Comments (continue hard copy comments on back or on next page):
Page 2
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
3. Council Relationship
The City Attorney:
▪ Does a good job in researching and responding to Council calls, questions,
and inquiries.
▪ Demonstrates the appropriate level of preparation for Council meetings.
▪ Demonstrates the appropriate level of leadership/participation during Council
meetings, e.g., expressing opinion, offering suggestions, listening/talking when
appropriate to do so.
▪ Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that
feedback into action.
▪ Demonstrates actions that encourage mutual honesty, respect, and trust.
Comments:
Please list any specific improvement(s) that the City Attorney can make to strengthen her
relationship with Council.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
4. Public Relationship
The City Attorney:
▪ Listens openly to public requests and suggestions.
▪ Is responsive to requests from the public, within the context of her job responsibilities.
▪ Is a good representative of the City.
Comments:
Page 3
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
5. Leadership (as a Departmental
Director)
The City Attorney:
▪ Generally exercises sound judgment.
▪ Prevents crises when possible but responds to crises when necessary.
▪ Demonstrates good interpersonal skills.
▪ Effectively manages outside Counsel to achieve positive results.
▪ Works effectively with Departments to collaboratively solve problems.
▪ Models good leadership with her staff and in her role as a department director.
Comments:
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
6. Talent Management
The City Attorney:
▪ Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment, e.g., through
employee recognition, an environment of openness, and regular communication.
▪ Fosters teamwork among staff members.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to recruit and manage high quality, diverse applicants.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to retain high performers within limits of control (e.g.,
within the confines of pay scales, job proximity and family/personal factors that
can lead to employee turnover).
▪ Engages in personnel issues appropriately.
▪ Assures that employees are engaging in professional development e.g., through
coaching, targeted work assignments, internal/external training, professional
conferences and other learning opportunities.
Comments:
Page 4
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
7. Management Operations/
Organizational Effectiveness
The City Attorney:
▪ Competently manages the City’s full service law office.
▪ Assures the development of clear staff workplans and holds staff accountable to
those workplans.
▪ Effectively assures competent budget development, execution, and financial
controls and monitoring.
▪ Attends to the long-term financial health of the City through efficiency
improvements, e.g., managing expenses of outside Counsel.
▪ Encourages high performance and continuous improvement among staff and in all
City operations.
Comments:
8. Overall Strengths:
Comments:
Page 5
9. Overall Areas for Development/Improvement:
Comments:
10. Overall Rating (Circle/highlight one)
Exceeds Meets Needs
Outstanding Expectations Expectations Improvement Unsatisfactory
5 4 3 2 1
11. Suggested City Attorney developmental goals for 2010-2011 – list these below
Comments:
Page 6
12. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS (may continue on back or add pages as
needed):
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
Mayor Date
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
Chair, CAO Review Committee Date
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
City Attorney Date
Page 7
Signature does not indicate agreement with review comments. Signature acknowledges that
review discussion of comments and ratings took place on date above and that employee has
received a copy of evaluation comments.
Page 1
City Attorney Performance Evaluation – City of Palo Alto
Employee: Molly Stump April 18, 2011 – July 31, 2011
Self-Evaluation
Note: Continue hard copy comments on back or attach pages, if needed.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis- standing tions tions ment factory
1. 2009-2010 08-2009 Development
Goals -– set with Council at last reviewset
with Council at last review
(See attached self-assessment of goal completion) Comments:
Note to Molly – This would be shown as N.A. for you this year, as a new
hire.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
2. Technical Competence and
Professional Development
The City Attorney:
▪ Demonstrates an understanding of the City’s business operations and goals.
▪ Does a good job in providing Provides legal advice to the City Manager, Assistant
City Manager, Department Directors and staff that is timely, accurate,
understandable, and usable. on the City’s legal issues.
▪ Remains neutral with respect to policy/political matters.
▪ Identifies alternatives to advance the goals of Council/CM/department heads/staff,
while reducing legal risk.
▪ Proactively identifies legal issues and risks.
▪ Identifies and resolves issues at the earliest feasible opportunity.
▪ Does a good job in researching and analyzing City legal issues independently or
with other attorneys in the City Attorney’s office.
▪ Reviews and manages City lawsuits and claims..
▪ Analyzes potential City exposure to liability risk.
▪ In conjunction with Council members, advises them of potential conflicts of interest.
▪ Collaborates effectively with City Manager and department directors to resolve City
legal issues.
Formatted: Font color: Green
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Arial, 10 pt, Bold, Italic
Formatted: Font: Arial, 10 pt, Bold, Italic
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Arial, 10 pt, Bold, Italic
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Arial, 10 pt, Bold, Italic
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Page 2
▪ Engages in professional development/learning activities to keep abreast of new
developments in his/her field and to continue to build skills (see summary of
professional development time spent during performance period in self-evaluation).
▪ Maintains an active network of City Attorneys who act as a resource for the City of
Palo Alto.
Comments (continue hard copy comments on back or on next page):
2. Technical Competence and Professional Development (continued)
Comments:
Exceeds Meets Needs Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
3. Council Relationship
The City Attorney:
▪ Does a good job in researching and responding to Council calls, questions, and
inquiries.
▪ Demonstrates the appropriate level of preparation for Council meetings.
▪ Demonstrates the appropriate level of leadership/participation during Council
meetings, e.g., expressing opinion, offering suggestions, listening/talking when
appropriate to do so.
▪ Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that
feedback into action.
▪ Demonstrates actions that encourage mutual honesty, respect, and trust.
Comments:
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Strikethrough
Page 3
Please list any specific improvement(s) that the City Attorney can make to strengthen
his/her relationship with Council.
Exceeds Meets Needs
Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis- standing tions tions ment factory
4. Public Relationship
The City Attorney:
▪ Listens openly to public requests and suggestions.
▪ Is responsive to requests from the public, within the context of his/her job
responsibilities.
▪ Is a good representative of the City.
Comments:
Exceeds Meets Needs Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis- standing tions tions ment factory
5. Leadership (as a Departmental
Director)
The City Attorney:
▪ Generally exercises sound judgment.
▪ Prevents crises when possible but responds to crises when necessary.
▪ Demonstrates good interpersonal skills.
▪ Effectively manages outside Counsel to achieve positive results.
▪ Works effectively with Departments to collaboratively solve problems.
▪ Models good leadership with his/her staff and in his/her role as a department director.
Comments:
Page 4
Exceeds Meets Needs Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis-
standing tions tions ment factory
6. Talent Management
The City Attorney:
▪ Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment, e.g.,
through employee recognition, an environment of openness, and regular
communication.
▪ Fosters teamwork among staff members.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to recruit and manage high quality, diverse applicants.
▪ Demonstrates the ability to retain high performers within limits of control (e.g.,
within the confines of pay scales, job proximity and family/personal factors that
can lead to employee turnover).
▪ Engages in personnel issues appropriately.
▪ Coaches staff members and aAssures that employees are engaging in professional
development e.g., through coaching, targeted work assignments, internal/external
training, professional conferences and other learning opportunities.
▪ .
Comments:
Exceeds Meets Needs Out- Expecta- Expecta- Improve- Unsatis- standing tions tions ment factory
7. Management Operations/
Organizational Effectiveness
The City Attorney:
▪ Competently manages the City’s full service law office.
▪ Assures the development of clear staff workplans and holds staff accountable to
those workplans.
▪ Effectively assures competent budget development, execution, and financial
controls and monitoring.
▪ Attends to the long-term financial health of the City through efficiency
improvements, e.g., managing expenses of outside Counsel.
▪ Encourages high performance and continuous improvement among staff and in all
City operations.
Page 5
Comments:
8. Overall Strengths:
Comments:
9. Overall Areas for Development/Improvement:
Comments:
Page 6
10. Overall Rating (Circle/highlight one)
Exceeds Meets Needs
Outstanding Expectations Expectations Improvement Unsatisfactory
5 4 3 2 1
11. Suggested City Attorney developmental goals for 2010-2011 – list these below
Comments:
12. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS (may continue on back or add pages as
needed):
Page 7
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
Mayor Date
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
Chair, CAO Review Committee Date
Signed_____________________________________________ _________________
City Attorney Date
Signature does not indicate agreement with review comments. Signature acknowledges that
review discussion of comments and ratings took place on date above and that employee has
received a copy of evaluation comments.
EXCERPT ACTION MINUTES
MAY 9, 2011
15. Approval of Agreement with Sherry L. Lund and Associates in an
Amount of $37,875 (Subject to Potential $1,500 Discount) for
Completion of Annual Council Appointed Officer’s Performance
Reviews.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Sherry L.
Lund and Associates in an amount of $37,875 for facilitation of Council
Appointed Officers evaluations.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council
Member Shepherd to delete the midyear check in and the modified
360 evaluation.
AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE MIDYEAR CHECK IN FAILED:
4-4 Espinosa, Holman, Price, Schmid no, Yeh absent
AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE MODIFIED 360 EVALUATION
FAILED: 4-4 Espinosa, Holman, Price, Schmid no, Yeh absent
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to continue this item to the Council Meeting on May 16, 2011.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Holman to: 1) approve the recommendation for
$25,500, to include the $1,500 deduction for early completion, 2) not
include the additional items, and 3) continue those two items to a date
when all Council Members are available.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXXX to have a separate vote on the 360 evaluation piece.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Espinosa no, Yeh absent
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor
Espinosa to accept the modified 360 evaluation approach for $4,925.
MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Burt, Klein, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, no,
Yeh absent
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1555)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1555)
Summary Title: PM Services for Phone System Upgrade
Title: Approval of Contract with Communication Strategies for Project
Management Services for Telephone System Replacement and Infrastructure
Upgrade in the Total Amount of $119,700
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached contract with Communication Strategies in the base amount of $99,750 and $19,950
in contingencies with a total amount not to exceed $119,700 for telecommunications and
infrastructure project management services in support of the implementation of a new
telephone system. This is one contract of approximately four that will amount to a total of $2.4
million dollars for the total project.
Executive Summary
Approval of a contract with Communications Strategies, Inc in the base amount of $99,750 and
$19,950 in contingencies with a total amount not to exceed $119,700 for telecommunications
and infrastructure project management services.
Background
A majority of the City’s telecommunications systems (Phone System, Voicemail, and Data) are
over 20 years old and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The hardware has
experienced down time over the last several years that have led to temporary loss of telephone
services. The reliability of the City’s telephone and telecommunications services is critical to
City operations. The telephone system is old and many of the telephones components are no
longer manufactured with replacements becoming difficult to come by.
Discussion
In September of 2009, staff contracted with a telecommunications professional services
consultant, Communication Strategies, to prepare a feasibility study and needs analysis of the
City’s telephone and voicemail systems to determine the direction the City should pursue to
upgrade the system and at what estimated costs. In August of 2010, the consultant provided
their findings and recommended moving in the direction of an industry standard Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone system. It was also recommended that the City first perform
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1555)
essential and requisite infrastructure upgrades to ensure Quality of Service (QoS), Power over
Ethernet (PoE) redundancy, and capacity management including:
·Cabling (approximately 70% of the City’s cabling is antiquated CAT3 cabling)
·Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
·Power (including Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS))
·Facility renovations (for cabling closets)
The estimated total cost range for this recommendation is $1,990,000 -$2,180,000.
All Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony Call Processing hardware,
software and implementation costs. Redundancy/Resiliency and
failover is included
$725,000-$800,000
Refresh of all IT switching equipment $ 630,000-$730,000
UPS and additional power requirements for access switches $100,000
Misc. Feeder cable/Fiber/Intermediate Distribution Frame (IDF)
work
$60,000
Refresh of all City IT cabling infrastructure with 2000 runs of Cat6
plenum rated cable @$200 per drop (includes allowance for
asbestos work)
$400,000
Project Management Costs (RFP/Evaluation/Project Management)$75,000-$90,000
TOTAL $1,990,000-$2,180,000
Annual Support (after year 1) Telephone system $40,000
In order to ensure competitive pricing, City staff elected to do another competitive solicitation
for Project Management services. In December of 2010, proposals were received in response
to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for telecommunications and infrastructure upgrade Project
Management services. Three vendors submitted proposals and vendor interviews were
conducted. The following lists the vendors that submitted proposals:
Company Name Location (City, State)Selected for Oral Interview
Visionary Integration
Professionals
Sacramento, CA Yes
Communication Strategies Saint Helena, CA Yes
Client First Consulting Group Corona, CA Yes
Cost Range of Proposals Submitted: $99,750 -$350,000
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1555)
Staff carefully rated and ranked each firm's submittal in response to the RFP relative to the
following criteria:
·Vendor Experience
·Knowledge of and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies
·Completeness and Quality of Proposal
·Cost Proposal
Upon staff’s evaluation of the proposals and vendor interviews, Communication Strategies was
selected as the recommended awarded vendor based on all the above criteria. Communication
Strategies has extensive knowledge in telecommunications and technical infrastructure, has a
proven track record working with other public agencies such as, City of Tracy, City of Manteca,
Stanislaus County Office of Education, San Mateo County, and Stanford Hospital and Clinics. In
addition, Communication Strategies submitted the most favorable proposal in terms of cost.
Moving forward, Communication Strategies will assist with developing requirements for all
components of this upgrade, develop specifications, establish evaluation criteria, coordinate
vendor interviews, assist with contract execution, and provide overall project management
during implementation.
Resource Impact
In anticipation for this work, CIP TE-00010 was established in the amount of $1 million dollars.
Due to the required infrastructure upgrades needed to support the implementation of a new
phone system, staff will be asking for additional funding. The phone system cost will be
allocated to all funds based on usage. The Funding sources will first be identified by the closure
of technology CIPs that are completed or no longer needed and then utilizing Technology Fund
reserves.
Environmental Review
This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Communication Strategies Contract (PDF)
Prepared By:Lisa Bolger, Manager, IT
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager