HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-13 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
June 13, 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 13, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio,
Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray, Val Fong)
Employee Organization: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo
Alto (UMPAPA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF) Local
1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers (PAPOA) Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
7:30 PM or as Soon as Possible Thereafter
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.
2 June 13, 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.
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes May 2, 2011 May 9, 2011 May 16, 2011
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2.Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly
Report as of March 31, 2011
3.Finance Committee Recommendation to Release Fiscal Year 2011 SAP CIP
Projects
4.Approval of a Contract with Ferma Corporation in the amount of $159,002 for
the Long-term Rental of a Track-Type Bulldozer for a Period of up to 12
(Twelve) Months
5.Approval of a Three Year Contract with Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. in
the Amount not to Exceed $241, 550 for Trail Maintenance in the Baylands
Nature Preserve, Pearson Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park
6.Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to
Howard Yancey Upon His Retirement
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7.Public Hearing –Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds –Plan
G: FY 2011-2012; Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer’s Report and
Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year
2011-2012)
3 June 13, 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.
8.PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012
Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program, and
Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of Five Resolutions: (1)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase; (2)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Fiber Optic Rate Increases; (3) Amending
Utility Rate Schedules for Wastewater Rate Increases pursuant to Proposition
218; (4) Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Water Rate Increases; (5)
Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for the Management and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees; and Adoption of an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 2.08 to Create a New Department of Information
Technology
9.PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Water Utility Rate Changes pursuant to
Proposition 218
10.PUBLIC HEARING: Utilities Advisory Commission’s Recommendation to
Approve a Resolution to Adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and
SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
11.Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at El
Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El
Camino Park Resevoir Project
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services
or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning
any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that
item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please
complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers,
and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your
name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
5 June 13, 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 City Manager
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
Report on the Palo Alto Downtown Weekday FarmShop
Palo Alto Options in Reaction to Santa Clara County Library (SCCO)
Withdrawing from the Pacific Library Partnership and Charging Non-Residents
an Annual Fee for a Library Card
Public Letters to Council
Supplemental Information
May 2, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Contract with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), in an
Amount Not to Exceed $774,596 (including 10% contingency fee) for
External Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2011
through June 30, 2015
RECOMMENDATION
The Interim City Auditor recommends approval of an agreement with the accounting firm of Macias
Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), for external financial audit services for the five fiscal years ending on
June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent
contingency of $70,418, for a total not to exceed amount of $774,596.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter requires the City Council, through the City Auditor, to engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit, and report the results of the
audit, in writing, to the City Council. The City’s contract with Maze & Associates, the City’s former
external auditor, expired at the end of the Fiscal Year 2010 audit. Accordingly, the City conducted a
competitive procurement process to select a certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual
financial audit for the next five years.
The evaluation panel, which included staff from the City Auditor’s Office and the Administrative
Services Department (ASD), selected the firm of Macias, Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO) to
recommend to the City Council.
MGO is the principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities, as well as Santa Clara County,
San Mateo County, the Contra Costa Water District, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The cost of the five-year agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent contingency of $70,418, for a
total not to exceed amount of $774,596.
On April 19, 2011, the Finance Committee unanimously approved my recommendation to negotiate
an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP, for external financial audit services. The Finance
Committee also recommended the City Auditor’s Office return to the Committee with a proposed
External Financial Auditor rotation policy.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Interim City Auditor
Attachment A: Finance Committee Meeting Excerpt (April 19, 2011)
Attachment B: City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External Financial Audit Firm
Attachment C: Contract with Macias Gini & O’Connell
Attachment A
FINANCE COMMITTEE - EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Absent: None
5. City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External
Financial Audit Firm
Michael Edmonds, Interim City Auditor, requested the Finance
Committee to authorize the City Auditor to negotiate a contract with
Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO) for external audit services for the
fiscal years ending on June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The total
cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a ten percent contingency fee
of $70,418, for a total not to exceed amount of $774,596. Mr.
Edmonds stated that in February 2011, the City initiated a formal
Request for Proposal (RFP) process that encouraged competition from
all qualified firms, including the current external financial auditors,
Maze & Associates. The RFP was sent to 16 audit firms, and in
response, the City received proposals from seven audit firms. An
evaluation team of six, including staff from the City Auditor’s Office
and the Administrative Services Department (ASD), reviewed and
evaluated the seven proposals and agreed to interview the two most
qualified firms, Maze & Associates and MGO.
Mr. Edmonds detailed how Maze & Associates has been the City’s
external financial auditor for the past 13 years, while MGO is the
principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities. Although the
evaluation team agreed that both firms were highly qualified,
Attachment A
experienced firms, the evaluation team recommended the award of the
agreement for external audit services to MGO.
Mr. Edmonds discussed how MGO’s cost proposal was lower than that
of Maze & Associates by $57,675 over the five years. The evaluation
team contacted six references which reported that MGO was thorough,
flexible with staff, met deadlines, and stayed within their cost
proposal.
Mr. Edmonds explained that there were a couple of concerns regarding
MGO. First, a couple members of the evaluation team expressed
concern with the direct experience of the MGO team regarding their
gas and electric utility experience. After some discussion with MGO,
the firm agreed to language in the agreement to designate staff with
experience in auditing gas and electric utilities to be included on the
audit team at no additional cost to the City. The second concern was
raised by the ASD Director in that with changing auditors at a time
when the department is losing a number of key staff due to
retirements, there will be additional staff costs and time associated
with the transition to a new auditing firm. Mr. Edmonds stated he
understood those concerns but was confident they would be addressed
and overcome. Mr. Edmonds explained how other organizations
experienced similar transitions with reduced resources, and were able
to do so in a smoother than expected approach.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member Yeh, that the Finance Committee recommend to the City
Council to approve the City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of
External Financial Audit Firm.
Council Member Schmid said that after 13 years, he can see a need for
change. He said that in the first year of the contract, he does not
expect to see any budget savings.
Council Member Yeh asked whether the issue regarding gas and
electric experience is the only concern pertaining to Utilities funds. Mr.
Edmonds answered yes; the evaluation panel felt strongly that MGO
was a highly qualified firm.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, complimented Mr.
Edmonds for addressing these concerns. He also stated the concern
with ASD staff leaving was of high importance, but Mr. Edmonds was
able to address those concerns to his satisfaction. He said that
overall, he is happy with the change.
Attachment A
Council Member Yeh stated that it is good to know that all the issues
are resolved. He suggested that since the City does not have a formal
rotation policy in hiring an external financial auditor, the City Auditor’s
Office can review other organization’s policies and/or go out for a RFP.
This can be added as an amendment to the initial motion.
Mr. Edmonds confirmed that there is no formal auditor rotation policy
in place right now, but he could develop one for Council’s approval
according to the Government Finance Officer’s Association best
practices for audit procurement.
Mr. Edmonds asked if this item should return to the Finance
Committee or Policy and Services.
Chair Scharff stated that his sense is that it should go to Policy and
Services.
Council Member Schmid said by going to Policy and Services, it gets
them engaged in the audit process.
Chair Scharff said he thinks the City Auditor should come back to the
Finance Committee meeting and then possibly afterwards to the Policy
and Services Committee.
Chair Scharff asked what the evaluation team felt about other cities’
bids when they were hiring for an external financial auditor.
Mr. Edmonds responded that there was no real sense regarding that
question. The prices of the various firms are public information.
Therefore, a competing firm to Maze & Associates, for example, knows
what their bid price would be going into the process.
Mr. Perez mentioned that from his experience (in auditing and other
areas), firms want to have Palo Alto on their resume.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
April 19, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Attn: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
City Auditor’s Recommendation for Selection of External Financial Audit
Firm
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Auditor should negotiate an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO)
for external audit services for the fiscal years ending on June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015. The
total cost of the agreement is $704,178, plus a 10 percent contingency of $70,418, for a total cost of
$774,596. The agreement amount for each of the fiscal years is as follows: $136,945 for the fiscal
years (FY) ending June 30, 2011; $138,863 for the FY ending June 30, 2012; $140,809 for the FY
ending June 30, 2013; $142,780 for the FY ending June 30, 2014; and $144,781 for the FY ending
June 30, 2015. This agreement will require approval by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter requires the City Council, through the City Auditor, to engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit, and report the results of the
audit, in writing, to the City Council. Accordingly, in February 2011, the City initiated a formal
Request for Proposal (RFP) process that encouraged competition from all qualified firms, including
the current external auditors, Maze & Associates. The RFP was sent to 16 audit firms, and in
response, the City received proposals from seven audit firms: MGO, Caporicci & Larson, Inc.,
Chavan & Associates, Maze & Associates, Nigro & Nigro, Sotomayer & Associates, LLP, and
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP.
An evaluation team of six, including staff from the City Auditor’s Office and the Administrative
Services Department (ASD), reviewed and evaluated the seven proposals and agreed to interview
the two most qualified firms, Maze & Associates and MGO.
Maze & Associates specializes in government auditing services and has been the City’s external
auditor for the past 13 years. Maze & Associates currently has 40 cities as clients and annually
audits over 200 entities including cities, special districts, joint powers authorities, redevelopment
agencies, housing authorities, and financing authorities.
MGO is the principal auditor for 7 of the 10 largest California cities-San Diego, San Jose, San
Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Oakland, and Santa Ana. MGO’s list of clients also includes Santa
Clara County, San Mateo County, Alameda County, the Contra Costa Water District, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
Attachment B
Although the evaluation team agreed that both firms were highly qualified, experienced firms, the
evaluation team recommended the award of the agreement for external audit services to MGO.
The City does not have a formal rotation policy for its external auditor; however, the majority of the
evaluation team believed that the auditor’s independence would be enhanced by changing auditors
at this time, especially considering the qualifications and experience of MGO.
MGO’s cost proposal was lower than Maze & Associates. MGO’s five year cost proposal of
$704,178 was $57,675 less than Maze & Associates five year cost proposal of $761,853. MGO’s
cost proposal for the first year of the contract was $136,945, or approximately $9,400 less than
Maze & Associates first year cost proposal of $146,389.
The evaluation team contacted six references for MGO-the City and County of San Francisco, the
cities of San Jose, Oakland, Stockton, and Cupertino, and the Contra Costa Water District.
References reported that MGO was thorough, flexible with staff, met deadlines, and stayed within
their cost proposal. Two of the references, the City of Cupertino and the Contra Costa Water
District, recently switched to MGO after using Maze & Associates for 10 years. Both these
agencies reported that they were satisfied with the work of Maze & Associates but changed firms to
provide a fresh perspective. Both agencies also reported that the transition from Maze &
Associates to MGO went well and was smoother than expected.
A couple of members of the evaluation team were concerned with the level of experience of MGO’s
proposed audit team in auditing gas and electric utilities. To address this, the evaluation team
agreed to request MGO to include language in the agreement to assign staff with more experience
in auditing gas and electric utilities. MGO indicated that they firmly believe that the proposed audit
team has more than the requisite qualifications and experience to handle all aspects of the City’s
financial audit. Nevertheless, MGO has agreed to language in the agreement to designate staff
with experience in auditing gas and electric utilities to be included on the audit team.
The ASD Director raised concerns about changing auditors at a time when the department is losing
a number of key staff due to retirements. The ASD Director believes that much of the cost savings
in the first year of the contract will be offset by additional staff costs associated with the transition to
a new auditing firm.
The City Auditor’s Office believes that the ASD Director’s concerns are valid, but can be addressed.
Generally, changing auditors does create some additional work in the first year as the auditors try
to gain understanding of the organization’s financial system and internal controls. However, as
noted above, both the City of Cupertino and the Contra Costa Water District reported that the switch
from Maze & Associates to MGO was smoother than expected. In addition, MGO is very
experienced in auditing organizations which have undergone significant staff reductions, and the
firm is accustomed to working flexibly with staff to complete their work.
For the reasons cited above, I recommend the Finance Committee authorize the Acting City Auditor
to negotiate an agreement with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP that would be brought forward for
approval to the full Council on May 2, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Edmonds
Acting City Auditor
Cc: Lalo Perez
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1736)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1736)
Summary Title: SAP Enterprise Resource Planning Assessment
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Release Fiscal Year 2011 SAP CIP
Projects
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and Finance Committee recommend to the City Council approval of release of previously-
budgeted fiscal year (FY) 2011 funds for SAP-related Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) except
project TE-11004 Utilities Bill Redesign.
Summary
In July 2010, Council requested that staff prepare an assessment of the SAP system and a long-
term strategic plan before releasing the 2011 CIP funding for SAP improvements. The City of
Palo Alto (City) participated in a benchmark study which indicated City staff is supporting a
more complex SAP system landscape efficiently from both an operations and financial
perspective. The SAP Project Management Office (PMO) established a five-year road map
prioritizing projects in order to guide the deployment of enabling information technology to
reduce risk and ensure maximum return on SAP investments.
Committee Review and Recommendations
At the April 19, 2011 meeting of the Finance Committee, staff presented the Post-
Implementation SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System Assessment (Attachment A:
Staff Report ID #1521). The report contains results of the benchmark study, establishment of
the SAP Steering Committee, PMO, five-year road map (Attachment B: 5-Year SAP Road Map),
cost and benefit analysis of six SAP-related CIPs in FY 2011, and a discussion of a request for
proposal (RFP) for a review of the City’s SAP ERP system. During the discussion, the Finance
Committee recognized the value for all the CIP projects except for the Utilities Bill Redesign CIP.
Committee members did not support the bill redesign project because the benefits identified
did not outweigh the two year funding requirement of $900,000. Staff was encouraged to
revise the scope of services of the RFP for an independent assessment of the system to identify
areas for improvement where value is added for the customers and the City rather than to
perform an overall cost-benefit analysis of the SAP system from inception.
After the discussion, the Finance Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to support the
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1736)
recommendation that City Council approve the release of FY 2011 budget for five CIP projects
and revise the RFP scope of services to evaluate the future strategic road map.
CIP Description FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
TE-07000 Infrastructure Improvement 75$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TE-10000 Collection Software 32$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TE-10001 Utl Billing Continuous Improvement 350$ 150$ 250$ 250$ 250$ 250$
TE-11003 Recurring credit card 150$
TE-11005 Tiered rate on bill 100$ 100$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total 707$ 250$ 250$ 250$ 250$ 250$
Resource Impact
Funding for six SAP-related CIP projects in the amount of $1,457,000 was placed on hold in FY
2011 except for work involving legal requirements until an assessment was completed. Staff
requests authorization to release FY 2011 funding for five of the six CIP projects listed in this
report in the amount of $707,000. In the FY 2012 budget, staff plans to request an additional
$250,000 for continuance of two Utility-related projects.
Attachments:
·Attachment A_ID 1521 Final Report_SAP Enterprise Resource Planning Assessment 04-19-11
(PDF)
·Attachment B_5-Year SAP Road Map (PDF)
·Attachment C_Draft Excerpt Minutes of 4-19-11 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:David Yuan, Sr. Management Analyst
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1521)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 4/19/2011
April 19, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1521)
Summary Title: SAP Enterprise Resource Planning Assessment
Title: Post-Implementation SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Assessment
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council approval of
release of the previously-budgeted 2011 funds for SAP-related Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP). Per Council’s request, staff is providing the "Post-Implementation SAP Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) System Assessment”.
Executive Summary
Council requested that staff prepare an assessment of the SAP system before releasing the
2011 CIP funding for SAP improvements. Staff completed the tasks described below and
requests that Council release the SAP CIP funding for the 2011 fiscal year.
The City of Palo Alto (City) recently participated in a benchmark survey conducted by the SAP
Value Engineering Group. The survey focused on benchmarking SAP operation performance
with similar industry peers. Over 240 organizations participated in the survey, of which 22 were
Utilities-related and 15 were in the public sector. When compared with similar organizations,
initial results indicate City staff is supporting a more complex SAP system landscape efficiently
from both an operations and financial perspective.
To steer SAP investment direction as well as to provide overall guidance of SAP
implementation, the City established a SAP Program Management Office (PMO) and a Steering
Committee. These teams are comprised of staff from the Administrative Services, Utilities and
Public Works departments. They review key operations indices and prioritize projects within
budget and resource constraints.
The City issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a review of its SAP software installation. The
primary goals of the assessment are to evaluate the value that was delivered to the City
through the implementation of the software, compared to other ERP system costs, and to
identify recognized industry best practices. The assessment will also describe process
improvements achieved through the implementation of SAP, identify risks to the continued
operation of the system, and provide recommendations on how to mitigate the risks.
April 19, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1521)
Background
On July 19, 2010, Council approved a three year software consulting services contract with
Sierra Infosys Inc. in the amount of $250,000 per year ($750,000 over three years) for the
support and maintenance of the SAP Utilities and Financial systems, on an as needed basis.
Along with the approval, Council required that staff return with a study session on SAP cost
benchmarking, cost benefit analyses on SAP related projects, and long-term strategic plan.
Discussion
In July 2002, the City selected SAP as its ERP system to address the challenge of disparate
business systems in the City. The SAP system replaced the City’s aging financial, personnel and
payroll systems and allowed the City to implement new functionality such as project
management, work order and service order systems. In May 2009, the City completed an
upgrade of the SAP system to ERP Central Component (ECC 6.0) and the implementation of the
SAP Utilities Module called SAP’s Industry Specific Solution for Utilities Customer Care and
Services (IS-U CCS). The IS-U CCS module replaced the Utilities Department’s 10 year-old
Customer Information System that was designed to create and manage customer accounts,
generate bills for the City’s seven utility services, and collect customer revenue. The IS-U CCS
software is used to process over 30,000 utility accounts, generate approximately 370,000 utility
bills and invoice an estimated $220.8 million annually. In January 2010, the City activated the
on-line e-bill and payment feature, My Utilities Account (MUA), for all utility accounts. To date,
the City’s SAP system installation and upgrade costs total approximately $15 million. The City’s
annual cost to maintain SAP is approximately $3.0 million, which is comprised of staffing
($2.2M), hardware and software licensing ($0.5M), and consulting ($0.25M).
Between September and December 2010, the City participated in a Total Cost of Ownership
survey to exchange benchmark metrics and best practices across various organizations that use
SAP. There were 40 questions geared towards key performance indicators and another 39
based on best practices. Overall, the results of the survey showed that the City has a highly
complex system, provides similar IT efficiency levels, and invests less on SAP technology than
other organizations.
The City has five separate SAP server systems whereas the industry average is below two. Five
production systems are required at the City in order to support the required business
functionality, complexity that is driven by the addition of the City’s utilities. The City maintains
an ERP system which supports the core functions including accounting, finance, human
resources, service orders, projects, and utility billing, Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) for Utilities Customer Service to provide services for customers, Business Intelligence (BI)
for internal and external reporting, Utility Customer E-Services (UCES) for online utility
customers to view and pay electronic bills, and Employee Self-Service/Manager Self-Service
(ESS/MSS) for staff to enter time, request time off, and view personal information. In addition,
for each production instance the City manages two additional clients for development and
quality assurance testing to maintain security and data integrity.
April 19, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1521)
For IT efficiency, staff spends approximately 4.9 staff hours per each SAP incident, which is
slightly above the 4.4 hours average. An incident can vary by hours to days, depending on the
complexity of the issue. As stated previously, the City has a more complex system due to the
number of production systems it supports for the City and its seven utilities. The IT Helpdesk
also supports SAP and closes approximately 40% of the work orders, which is above the
benchmark average of 32.5%. Based on benchmark results, the City’s IT and SAP staff are
supporting the system in an effective manner.
The City invests about 21.3% or $2.8 million of its total IT budget in SAP, which is below the
survey average of 34.3%. The SAP support cost per active user is $3,962 which is 12% below
the average. The City has been able to keep costs relatively low in comparison to other
organizations by avoiding program customizations and implementing standardized solutions to
support City’s business strategies.
Category Metric City Avg.
Complexity Number of Production Systems 5.0 1.65
% of Critical Interfaces 64.4 49.2
Efficiency Total Labor Hours per SAP Incident 4.9 4.4
% of Incidents Resolved by Help Desk 40.0 32.5
IT Investments SAP Budget as % of Total IT Budget 21.3 34.3
SAP Support Cost per User 3,962 4,447
To provide guidance on SAP Governance and Control, the SAP Program Management Office
(PMO), consisting of Assistant Directors and managers from Administrative Services, Utilities,
Public Works and IT, and the SAP Steering Committee comprising the Directors from Utilities,
Public Works, Human Resources and IT were put into place in September 2009. The PMO office
management team meets weekly to discuss project status and subjects related to operations
while the Steering Committee meets on a bi-monthly basis to review key operations indices,
project priorities, and resource and budget status. As a result of the SAP investment planning
process, where business drivers and enabling IT/SAP technologies are aligned, the PMO
developed a five-year road map from 2009 to 2013 to provide short-, medium-, and long-term
views of SAP Investment. Each investment will be associated with key business drivers and
enabling IT technology. These investment roadmaps are to guide the deployment of enabling
information technology to reduce risk and ensure maximum return on SAP investments.
In the five-year roadmap, the SAP Steering Committee and PMO prioritized projects in order to
achieve maximum return on SAP investments with limited resources in an increasingly complex
and changing technological environment. The PMO has identified a multitude of business
drivers including Council priorities, customer service, regulatory compliance, operating costs
reduction, improvements in service delivery and efficiency, and revenue enhancements. One of
the challenges in aligning business goals with enabling information technology is finding the
optimal balance between IT costs and business benefit, which involves identifying the business
April 19, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1521)
impact of every IT solution and understanding the complete life-cycle issues. In the roadmap
there is an alignment of business drivers and enabling technologies with the scheduled projects.
In October 2009, staff committed to have a post-implementation review of the SAP system.
The City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in February 2011 for a post-implementation review
of the SAP system to provide a high level analysis of the overall investment in ERP technology
and its benefit to the City. The scope of work will include a comparison of the costs of ERP
system implementations and maintenance in other organizations of similar scope, size, and
complexity; an assessment of the system’s ability to support key business processes; a
comparison of City’s business processes to industry best practices; identification of ongoing
risks in the system, and recommendations on how to mitigate risks and potential
improvements. The RFP closed on March 15, 2011. A summary of RFP responses follow:
ICA Consulting $48,720
Phoenix Business Consulting $77,000
Government Finance Officers Association Consulting $59,880
Pacific Technologies Incorporated $49,935
Plante Moran $98,000
KPMG $337,340
Pandit View Software No total Cost Provided
SAP Techies $45,000
Staff is seeking direction to continue that total cost estimates for the assessment are higher
than expected.
SAP related -Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
There are six CIPs in FY 2011 that provide funding to enhance the City’s SAP system. Each CIP
performs a specific function and provides a value and benefit. The following is a high level
scope of each FY 2011 project and includes general estimated costs, benefits, and timelines.
Although budgeted CIP amounts for FY 2011 remain unchanged, please note that certain CIP
funding requirements are expected to carry forward to FY 2012, as a continuance request to
complete the projects:
1.TE-07000 -Enterprise Application Infrastructure Upgrade –$75,000
o Scope:
§Additional hardware storage is required to ensure the backup of the
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) web application server,
which ensures Utilities Customer Service interface (i.e. processing
customer move-ins) is properly developed.
§New, dedicated back-up servers are required for both the CRM and UCES
(Utilities Customer Electronic Services) systems.
o Benefits:
§Ensures business continuity of mission critical systems
April 19, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1521)
§Ensures promptness of recovery (if required)
o Completion:End of FY 2011
o Funding Requirement:$75,000
2.TE-10000 -Enterprise Collection Software -$32,000
o Scope:
§Implement non-utility related Accounts Receivable and Collection
processes in the SAP system.
§Automated tracking of late and unpaid receivables
§Automatic creation of delinquent (Dunning) and late fee notices
o Create additional notices and types (i.e. 30, 60, and 90 days)
§Reporting –additional Collection reports to be created
o Benefits:
§Automation of the Collection process which increases staff productivity
§Reduces non-utility AR aging
§Improves reporting capabilities
o Completion:Beginning of FY 2012
o Funding Requirement:$79,000 in FY 2010 and $32,000 in FY 2011
3.TE-10001 -Utilities Customer Billing Continuous Improvements -$350,000
o Scope:
§SAP system enhancements related to legislative and regulatory
mandates.
·Assembly Bills 531 and 1103 –Non-Residential Building Energy
Data Consumption -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Benchmarking.
·Senate Bill 120 -Requires that Utilities offer the utilities account
currently paid by the landlord to the residential occupants, when
service is scheduled to be disconnected for non-payment.
Requires programming to capture tenant-occupied residential
dwellings.
·Print Ten-Day, 48-Hour and Disconnection Notices in specified
languages required by the California Public Utilities Code.
§Optimize critical Customer Service Rep business process screens
§Enhancements to online services (My Utilities Account)
§Improved data capture of customer payment arrangements
§Automate tracking of consumption for high bill complaints
§Increase the security of customer sensitive data
§Automation of specific business processes
o Benefits:
§Fulfills legislative and regulatory requirements
§Improvements to the CSR Screens –increases operational efficiency and
productivity of business process (i.e. new account creation). Reduces
customer hold and call times.
April 19, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1521)
§Continuous improvement of security of customer-sensitive data –
increases the protection of customer-sensitive data through added
masking, encryption, or authorizations.
§Enhancements to My Utilities Account –increased ease of usability,
decrease number of user clicks, and add functionality.
§Continue to automate specific business processes –reduce manual
processes to increase efficiency.
o Completion: FY2011 and FY2012
o Funding Requirements: FY 2011 -$350,000. Due to a shift in SAP priorities and
staff’s ability to perform regulatory related enhancements, a large percentage of
the $350,000 is not expected to be utilized in FY 2011. Staff is anticipating the
need for a continuance of FY 2011 funding into FY 2012, which is reflected by a
reduction in the original FY2012 budget from $367,000 to $150,000. This is a
reduction in the amount of $217,000.
4.TE-11003 -Recurring Credit Card Payments -$150,000
o Scope:
§SAP system and My Utilities Account web application enhancements are
required to provide online customers with the ability to set up the
recurring payment of their Utilities invoice using a Credit Card.
(Currently, only offering recurring ACH or auto debit from the customer’s
bank account.)
o Benefits:
§Encourages the use of online e-services, which reduces operational
expenses
§Increase in Customer satisfaction
§Increase in Customer convenience
o Completion:mid-FY 2012 (estimate)
o Funding Requirements: FY 2011 -$150,000. A request for continuance of FY
2011 funding into FY 2012 is expected with no additional funding requested for
FY 2012.
5.TE-11004 –Utilities Customer Bill Redesign –$750,000
(formerly: “Utility Bill Information Enhancements”)
o Scope:
§Utilities bill printing software (current third-party vendor support is from
Pitney Bowes) and SAP system changes are required to perform a
complete overhaul of the current Utilities invoice design and format.
o Benefits:
§Display information to encourage conservation of usage
·New graphs and helpful consumption comparisons
·Rate information
·Water and Energy Efficiency Program Participation
April 19, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1521)
§Improved transparency of the invoices for each of the seven regular
utilities services, plus added detail for “miscellaneous” charges.
§Display of customer Deposit amounts held by CPAU
§Display of “On-Bill Financing” loan and payment amounts
§Display of customer “Payment Arrangement” terms, invoices and
payments
§Additional billing information in tabular form
·Improved meter data, average daily and monthly consumption,
usage analysis, greenhouse gas equivalents, and Palo Alto
temperature data (heating and cooling degree days)
§Enhances the Customer’s satisfaction and experience
o Completion:end of FY2012 (estimate)
o Funding Requirements:In order to focus on higher priority SAP maintenance
items, this project was postponed to begin in late FY 2011. Please note that a
large portion of the budgeted $750,000 is not expected to be utilized in FY 2011.
However, the remaining balance at the end of fiscal year is expected to carry
over into FY 2012. The continuance will be in addition to the $150,000
requested for FY 2012. Business requirements gathering will occur in FY 2011
with the Blue Printing phase starting in July 2012.
6.TE-11005 -Implementation of New Utility Rate Structures -$100,000
(formerly: “Implementation of New Utility Rates”)
o Scope:
§SAP system changes required to accommodate new Utilities rate
structures including Residential Time-of-Use, Electric Vehicles, and
potential tier adjustments to existing rate schedules. This may include
new configuration development, testing of the calculation algorithm, and
changes to the invoice.
o Benefits:
§Ability to implement new rates as required in SAP
§Enables customers to view new rate details on the invoice
§Transparency of information
o Completion Date:FY 2012 (estimate)
o Funding Requirements: FY 2011 -$100,000. Due to the postponement of the
Utilities Smart Grid project, funding requirements for FY 2012 have been
reduced by $900,000.
A comprehensive view of estimated funding for each SAP-related CIP in FY 2011 and beyond is
provided in the table below. Dollar amounts in parentheses indicate an adjustment to reflect a
reduction in the original funding amount (in $000’s):
April 19, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1521)
CIP Description
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
TE-07000 Infrastructure Improve $75 0 0 0 0 0
TE-10000 Collection Software $32 0 0 0 0 0
TE-10001 Utl Billing Cont Improve $350 150 250 250 250 250
TE-11003 Recurring Credit Card $150 0 0 0 0 0
TE-11004 Utl Bill Redesign $750 $150 0 0 0 0
TE-11005 New Utility Rate Struct.$100 100 0 0 0 0
Total $1,457 $400 $250 $250 250 250
Timeline
The RFP closed on March 15, 2011. City received 8 proposals for the RFP. The consultant will
develop and present for City approval a complete project work plan, including a description of
major tasks and subtasks, along with a proposed timeline for completing the milestones.
Resource Impact
Funding for all SAP-related CIP projects in the amount of $1,457,000 was placed on hold in FY
2011 except for work involving legal requirements until an assessment was completed. Staff
requests authorization to release FY 2011 funding for the six CIP projects described in this
report. In the FY 2012 budget process, staff plans to request an additional $400,000 for
continuance of three Utility-related projects.
Prepared By:David Yuan, Sr. Management Analyst
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City’s SAP Road Map - Costs
City’s SAP system when comparing to
1
Biz Driver FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013+
Council
Initiatives /
Communication
Customer
Services
Operation
Efficiency
Compliance
Technology
Home Energy
Rpt – OPOWER
Budget
Publication
Enterprise
Performance
Management
e-Services
-Utilities bills
-Online Pay
UTL Recurring
Credit Card
(TE-11003)
UTL Bill Re-design
(TE-11004)
UTL Rate Design
-Electric. Residential Time of Use
(TE-11005)
Parking permit
Refuse Rate
Restructure
Refuse Revenue
Tracking
Wells Fargo
Payments
Electronic
Pay-stub
City Energy
HARA report
ESS/MSS
Implementation
Refuse
Rate increase
New services Collections
(TE-10000)
Accounts Payable
ePayment
Financial
Reporting
Financial
Analytics
AM - Vehicle
Migration
Web Services Business
Intelligence Portal Mobile, Cloud, Customer Portal, Smart Grid
Live/In Progress Future requirements Planning w/CIP
AB 531 and AB 1103
Building Energy Data
(TE10001)
SB 120
(TE-10001)
SB1 and AB 920
Net Metering
$50k
Upgrade
Upgrade
Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
$64k $50k - SAP only
$50k - SAP only
$10k -
$40k
$500k $500k
$100k
$150-$250k
$50-$100k
$500k
$250k
$100k
$?k
$200k -
$9M (Upgrade) + $264K $1.4M -$1.6M $2.1M - $3M (excluding Mobile, Cloud, Smart Grid)
$100k -
$50k -
$900k -
$150k -
$100k -
$111k -
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DRAFT EXCERPT
April 19, 2011
Post-Implementation SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Assessment.
David Ramberg Assistant Director Administrative Services, gave a
presentation which included an overview of the following: 1)
Participation in a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) survey for
benchmarking purposes, which provided initial results at a high level.
2) Post-Implementation System Assessment, which included Third
Party for Proposal (RFP) currently in progress and Finance Committee
direction to proceed with assessment. 3) City’s SAP ERP Road Map
with Short, Medium and Long-Term Review. 4) SAP-related Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) for 2011 with Staff’s recommendations to
release the CIPs. He continued with an overview of the City’s SAP
Solutions (modules) and how these plugged into the City’s operations.
He summarized the City’s SAP Services which included managing and
maintaining the City budget of over a half-billion dollars, processing
purchase documents, payroll checks, generating invoices and
collections for utilities, customer registers and utility user accounts,
incoming call centers, customer care centers and city business
features and systems. The SAP Total Cost of Ownership –
Benchmarking Results were also discussed. The City’s SAP system,
when compared to municipal and utility organizations, was completely
above average. Its support features were average. Its information
technology (IT) investments expenditures were less than average. He
updated the SAP Post-Implementation System Assessment. The City
had issued an RFP for a post-implementation review of its SAP
software installation, which included the scope of work and the current
status of the RFP. The scope of work evaluated the value of the City’s
SAP system, compared and contrasted its costs with alternative ERP
systems and identified best practices. The current status of the RFP
was released in March, received eight proposals, and the Finance
Committee’s direction to proceed. He continued with a roadmap of the
City’s SAP projects and costs. This included the City’s implemented
and live projects, scoped and ready to run projects and projects that
were in the early discussion phases.
Mr. Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director Engineering, reviewed the SAP-
Related Capital Improvement Project Summary List for 2011. These
included the Enterprise Application Infrastructure Upgrade at $75,000,
the Enterprise Collection Software at $32,000, Utilities Customer
Billing System Continuous Improvement at $350,000, Recurrent Credit
Card Payments Improvements at $150,000, Utilities Customers Bill
Redesign at $750,000 and Implementation of New Utility Rate
Structures $100,000. Overall, these CIPs provide enhancements to
the SAP system, add necessary hardware, functionality and will
improve staff productivity and efficiency through automation.
Council Member Yeh asked about recurring credit card payments. He
said there had been some data security issues with the City, and he
asked what had shifted or changed since those discussions.
Mr. Marshall said security procedures had been implemented with
encryption and best practices.
Mr. Ramberg stated the SAP standard encryption package was also the
key piece that was now in place.
Council Member Yeh stated at one time customer information was
purged after a one-time credit card payment. He asked if there is
another set of data costs by moving to this ongoing system.
Mr. Marshall said they had to encrypt the card numbers no matter
what, to make sure it could not be extracted from the system and
backups.
Council Member Yeh asked if CIP had generally undergone a cost
analysis. He questioned, for instance, if they could expect less late bill
pays and delinquencies with online and automated systems.
Mr. Ramberg stated they do review a program at the management
level with the Senior Managers within the SAP team. The degree of
rigor depends on the project, and the rate of return on a project. He
said the recurring credit cards were one where they have had a lot of
feedback from customers who have this option in other online bill-
paying environments.
Council Member Yeh noted the importance of understanding all the
various areas of utility data consumption in order to funnel the funds
appropriately rather than overlapping them in usage areas.
Tom Auzenne, Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support, stated
there would be some overlap for all of the different systems. The
billing period was not necessarily calendar-based. Some of these
things can be managed more effectively than they are now.
Council Member Yeh stated data can be overwhelming so it was helpful
to fully understand consumption.
Mr. Auzenne stated the $750,000 for the utility bill redesign was very
complicated. He would like to use the online environment for
customers to access their data, but they only read meters once a
month.
Council Member Yeh stated he was talking about spending money now
for more smart metering options later.
Mr. Auzenne stated even without more smart metering options now,
they already had six routes with auto meter readers which still
provides data that can be integrated more readily than a once-a-
month read. He stated the future of Utilities is data. He stated the
customer owns their data, and the goal remains in providing them with
their data more efficiently.
Council Member Yeh stated there were higher than estimated costs as
a result of the RFP. He asked for clarification on this.
Mr. Ramberg clarified this as being in the 50-85 range.
Lalo Perez, Director Administrative Services, stated that the City
Manager had said that he did not know the cost needed for an RFP.
The Motion was to go forward as long as it did not exceed the City
Manager’s authority.
Council Member Yeh stated the table had shown things in a little more
complexity.
Mr. Ramberg stated they were asking a consultant to come in and
show the total spent since 2003 and then look at the implementation
efforts from that point. The question was whether the City achieved
benefit from this spending, and also if the City running the assets
efficiently. As well, the question is whether there were continued
assets from these benefits going forward. What they were finding out
from consultants is that it is difficult to find benchmark cities in which
to make comparisons.
Mr. Perez stated it was Staff’s understanding from discussions with
consultants; the options were for one module over another. Council
had expressed concern over whether they continue to put money into
the system or not.
Mr. Ramberg cited $15 million as the actual amount spent thus far.
Council Member Schmid spoke on the three large CIP projects, mainly
the $750,000 project, and whether or not customers would see this
large project expenditure as something that would serve them and
save them money. He spoke to the Road Map and the interfaces to
the public, Council materials, the websites, customers calls and the
database that keeps the legal history.
Mr. Ramberg stated the database was where customers have a utility
account. This was not representative of the City’s website.
Council Member Schmid stated to be an effective website, you should
be able to get connected using the City’s website as a gateway.
Mr. Perez agreed stating that it was possible to use the City’s website
as a gateway, but it would cost money..
Council Member Schmid stated the City had a database with all kinds
of information.
Mr. Perez stated this is a different database.
Council Member Schmid asked why this cannot be integrated with the
Utility piece.
Mr. Perez said the permitting system, for instance, is already in place.
Other systems, third party systems, are already configured.
Mr. Ramberg stated the customer portal piece would be a front door or
entry point for a customer to interact electronically for utility bill pay,
register for a class or pay a permit. There are three entry points
already on three different systems, and SAP could provide one entry
point to interact with those three systems. Having a unified front end
is something they could get to and SAP could provide it at some point.
Council Member Shepherd noted nothing is perfect with a computer
system. She stated no one likes to spend the money on this but it was
necessary to keep up with future needs.
Asher Waldfogel, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Chair, stated 90
percent of the transactions in the system were Utilities-related and
they want to be ready for this. He requested clarification on the up
front costs and the long term savings.
Mr. Marshall noted the changes to the bill paying system were not
easy or inexpensive.
Mr. Waldfogel asked if this was a case of making back-end upgrades to
simplify front-end services.
Mr. Marshal agreed this was a case, gave an overview of what this
entailed and reiterated that this did not come without an initial cost.
He noted the various complications of data restructuring in order to
eventually simplify the process, making it more flexible in the long
run, more accessible, more user friendly. While it would eliminate
costs in the future, it did not come without startup cost considerations.
Mr. Waldfogel also questioned why, if Council policies were not to keep
credit card information, why then did they have policies to encrypt and
protect this information.
Mr. Marshal stated this encryption process was in place because this
information may be stored in data backups and therefore encryption is
still necessary.
Mr. Perez noted they can review this policy if necessary.
Council Member Scharff voiced concerns that the consultant was a
waste of money. He did not see the value in this. He appreciated the
roadmap, however. On the recurrent credit card issue, he asked how
many customers paid by credit card.
Mr. Marshall said 3,000 customers paid online with credit cards.
Council Member Scharff asked if there was any estimate about how
many customers would do recurrent credit card payments if they spent
additional money to ramp up the payment system.
Kevin Underbee, Senior Business Analyst for Utilities, stated there
were 6,000 to 7,000 online banking customers. The banking
customers are charged a small fee in order to make their online
banking transfers.
Council Member Scharff asked if there was a fee to use the credit card
for payments.
Mr. Underbee stated they could not charge a fee for the credit card.
He said there was also a percentage of people who walk up to the
counter to pay their bill.
Council Member Schmid asked how many paid through the mail.
Mr. Underbee stated roughly 15,000 customers paid through the mail
on a monthly basis.
Mr. Perez stated part of it was getting them interested in the points
and rewards plans as an incentive to use their credit cards for utility
bill paying.
Council Member Scharff saw some value in this but did not see the
cost benefits. He saw less than 10 percent of customers receiving
benefit from this expenditure.
Mr. Ramberg stated bank drafts were the only way to do recurring
payments. Presumably, some of the bank draft customers would
crossover to credit card payments. Other prospective customers may
also crossover.
Council Member Scharff stated for every one million dollars they
spend, this resulted in a one percent rate increase for the customer.
This is what he considered when making a decision on how this
translates to the customer and their satisfaction level. He stated he
could not justify this. He stated it was a huge amount of money and
he did not have the comfort level for it. He said the new utility rate
structure also gave him problems since it only applied to the time of
use for electrical vehicle charging.
Mr. Marshall stated one of the primary uses was for electric vehicles,
initially.
Council Member Scharff said he did not view this as an economic
incentive for people to buy electric vehicles. He did not see this as a
cost savings. He asked if there were numbers on this.
Mr. Marshall did not know the actual numbers at the time, but
suggested they were approximately 30-40 percent.
Council Member Scharff asked if he a cost estimateionof this.
Mr. Marshall stated he had no clear answer on this, dollar-wise, but
that people were asking for this.
Council Member Scharff asked how many people in the City actually
had electric vehicles.
Mr. Marshall stated there were a few in the City and people were
inquiring about time and use rates. The economics of the vehicles
were better if they were plugged in for charging at the nightly rates.
Council Member Scharff was still unclear as to how big of an incentive
this was.
Council Member Shepherd noted Pitney Bowes was a third party
vendor. She noted they were very expensive, and she wondered what
savings they might expect from Pitney Bowes.
Mr. Underbee stated SAP provided the data and then it’s channeled to
Pitney Bowes for vaulting and ebilling.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Scharff that the
Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of
release of the previously budgeted 2011 funds for SAP-related Capital
Improvement Projects except the bill redesign component, and
rescope the consultant.
Mr. Perez stated what they wanted to do is look at the roadmap to see
if it made sense. They can look at the alternative services and see
what can be done.
Council Member Yeh stated it started with core services and then they
added items.
Council Member Scharff spoke to what they would look for in the
rescoping. If they were looking for efficiencies of how to add modules,
he was on board with this.
Council Member Shepherd stated this also included best practices.
Council Member Yeh stated that would also be carried forward.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1674)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1674)
Summary Title: Track-type Dozer Rental
Title: Approval of a Contract with Ferma Corporation in the amount of $159,002
for the Long-term Rental of a Track-Type Bulldozer for a Period of up to 12
(Twelve) Months
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute a contract with Ferma Corporation in the amount of $159,002 for the rental
of a Caterpillar Model D8T, D9R, or D9T track-type bulldozer for a period of up to 12
(twelve) months.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto owns and operates a Refuse Disposal Facility that consists of an
active municipal solid waste landfill, an active landfill gas collection system, a landfill
gas control system and a greenwaste composting operation. The facility utilizes several
pieces of heavy equipment, including a bulldozer, refuse compactor, wheel loaders and
water trucks. The bulldozer is the primary piece of equipment used to move trash,
compost and dirt at the landfill; therefore it is essential to daily operations.
At Council’s earlier directions, staff has been “fast filling” the landfill and as a result the
landfill is currently scheduled to stop receiving trash in late July 2011. The landfill will
continue to accept compostable materials and concrete and asphalt (from City crews)
until the end of 2011 and will accept clean soil for closure through mid 2012.
On February 17, 2011, the city-owned 2005 Caterpillar D8T bulldozer (Unit #4208)
suffered substantial fire damage to the engine compartment and cab, and has not been
operable since that date. The fire started spontaneously in the early morning hours of
February 17th, and was extinguished by the Palo Alto Fire Department at approximately
5:00 a.m. The fire was ruled accidental and the investigator was not able to pinpoint a
specific cause given the extent of the damage. The dozer had not been operated for a
period of twelve consecutive hours at the time the fire was reported.
The estimate to repair the fire damage exceeds $300,000 and the repairs would take a
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1674)
minimum of four months to complete. The City’s insurance carrier was notified of the
loss and the claims process is currently in progress. Due to the cost of the repairs and
the down time that would be incurred, staff determined that a long-term rental would
be the most cost-effective means of providing a bulldozer to the landfill operation.
Even with the fire damage, the bulldozer has significant, but as yet, undetermined
residual value.
A Caterpillar D9R bulldozer was acquired on a short-term rental basis on February 18,
2011 in order to allow the landfill operations to continue uninterrupted while bids were
solicited.
A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a track-type dozer, Caterpillar Model D8T, D9R, or
D9T was sent to three vendors on March 22, 2011. Bids were received from two
qualified bidders on April 5, 2011, as listed on the attached bid summary
(Attachment A). Bids ranged from a high of $159,002 to a low bid of $153,387. The bid
submitted by ECCO Equipment Corp. did not meet the City’s requirements, so it could
not be considered for award.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by Ferma
Corporation be accepted and that Ferma Corporation be declared the lowest responsible
bidder.
Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for previous contracts and has
found no significant complaints.
Resource Impact
Funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2011 Refuse Fund operating budget.
Policy Implications
Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy.
Environmental Review
This work is exempt from the Comprehensive Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Class 1 categorical exemption, Article 19, Section 15301.
Attachments:
·A -Bid Summary (DOC)
·B -General Services Contract (PDF)
Prepared By:John Moran, Assistant Fleet Manager
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1674)
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
BID SUMMARY
D8T/D9R Dozer
RFQ140833
Ferma Corporation Bid Total $159,002
Ecco Equipment Corporation Bid Total $153,387*
*Proposal did not meet specifications
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1645)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1645)
Summary Title: Approval of Trail Contract
Title: Approval of a Three Year Contract with Northwest Woodland Services, Inc.
in the Amount not to Exceed $241, 550 for Trail Maintenance in the Baylands
Nature Preserve, Pearson Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached three
year contract with Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. in the amount of $241,550 for
trail maintenance in the Baylands Nature Preserve, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and
Foothills Park (Attachment A).
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of
which shall not exceed $18,155.
Discussion
Project Description
The work to be performed under this three year contract (Attachment A) is for annual and one-
time maintenance of trails in Foothills Park, the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands
Nature Preserve. Annual work includes grooming of trail treads, improving and cleaning
drainages and clearing vegetation growing into the trail corridor. One-time maintenance
includes adding aggregate to select trails in the Pearson-Arastradero to improve drainage and
stability in wet weather, repairing and replacing foot bridges in Foothills Park and maintaining
trail treads in the Baylands Nature Preserve. The scope also includes maintenance of road and
trail surface, roadside drainage ditches and culverts in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve for the
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number Name/Number of Bid here
Proposed Length of Project 36 months
Number of Bids Mailed to 5
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1645)
Contractors
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
0
Total Days to Respond to Bid 18
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes (Non-Mandatory)
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
3
Number of Bids Received:2 with one “no bid”
Bid Price Range From a low of $241,550 to a high of $477,600.
A Request for Quotation was sent on January 26, 2011 to 5 contractors with 18 days to respond
to the RFQ. A Non-Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference was held at Foothills Park on Monday
February 7, 2011. On February 15, 2011, bids where received from two contractors as listed on
the attached bid summary (Attachment B). Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and
recommends that the bid of $241,550 submitted by Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. be
accepted and that Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible
bidder. The change order amount of $18,155, which equals 8 percent, is requested for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Northwest Woodland
Services has been awarded this contract continuously since 2002. Staff confirmed with the
Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the Open Space portion of this project ($199,705) are included in Capital
Improvement Program Project –OS-0001 (Open Space Trails and Amenities). Funds for the
Utilities Water, Gas, and Wastewater portion ($60,000) is available in the Capital Improvement
Program Project -GS-11002 (Gas System Improvement) budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. Improvement of
approved trails is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-1: Manage existing public open
space areas and encourage the management of private open space areas in a manner that
meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. All
work proposed in this contract is consistent with the adopted Arastradero Preserve Trails
Management Plan, the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan and the Foothills Wildland Fire
Management Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This contract is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
is not subject to CEQA requirements.
Attachments:
·Attachment A -Contract with Northwest Woodlands Services, Inc.(PDF)
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1645)
·Attachment B -Bid Summary (PDF)
Prepared By:Lester Hodgins,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment B
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO
HOWARD YANCEY UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey has served the City of Palo Alto from January 10, 1983 to March 29,
2011 as Water Quality Control Plant Operator I and Operator II, Senior Operator, Operations
Supervisor, and Assistant Plant Manager; and
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public health of
citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and
Stanford University by operating the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey, in his 28 years of service has safeguarded and enhanced the water
quality of the Palo Alto Baylands and San Francisco Bay through careful plant operation and treatment
of over 200 billions of gallons of wastewater; and
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey helped keep the plant running during high flows from the February
1998 flooding events; and
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey was inducted into the Water Environment Federation Quarter
Century Operators Club in 2004 and recognized for excellence by the California Water Environment
Association as Operator of the Year in 1990 and Supervisor of the Year in 2005; and
WHEREAS, Howard Yancey has demonstrated a commitment to caring leadership, resourcefulness,
professionalism, teamwork, and protection of the environment; and whereas Howard has ably
demonstrated that he is experienced, devoted, and supportive of the plant and all its staff members; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Howard Yancey.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Howard Yancey and records its appreciation as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for
the service and contribution rendered during his 28 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 13, 2011
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ___________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ___________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1710)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1710)
Summary Title: Assessment for Cal. Ave. Area Parking Bonds
Title: Public Hearing –Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds –
Plan G: FY 2011-2012; Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer’s Report
and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal
Year 2011-2012)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) confirming the
Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue District, Project No. 92-13.
Background
By virtue of the prior establishment of the assessment district and issuance of debt, Council
action is required to levy assessments for the active parking project in the California Avenue
area. These assessments will be utilized for the payment of principal and interest on bonds for
capital improvements pursuant to the attached resolution. These funds are separate and
distinct from permit fees that are used to pay for operation and maintenance of parking
facilities.
The active project is listed and described as follows:
1.California Avenue District, Ted Thompson Parking Structure, Project 92-13: Construction of
a two-level parking structure on Cambridge Avenue between Birch Street and Nogal Lane.
Parking bonds issued under Bond Plan G (Section 13.16.150, Palo Alto Municipal Code) require
that a public hearing be held annually (the second Monday in June) on the assessments, which
must be levied to pay principal and interest on the bonds. The purpose of the public hearing is
to allow each property owner the opportunity to question the computation of his/her
assessment and the elements which comprise it, that is, the square footage of each occupied
building, the off-street parking requirements for the usage, and the off-street parking provided.
Assessments are levied on the basis of building square footage, with a credit given for the off-
street parking provided by the property owner. Additional details about the Parking
Assessment District-Plan G bond capital improvement program projects can be found in
Attachment B.
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1710)
Discussion
The assessment rates for FY 2011-12 (Attachment C) per square foot of adjusted building area
and the amount levied for the project is:
PROJECT
ASSESSMENT RATE PER
ADJUSTED BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE
DOLLARS
LEVIED
1.California Avenue District, Ted Thompson
Parking Structure, Project 92-13
$9.96*
$0.058**
Total:
$119,311.11
$ 39,770.31
$159,081.42
*Rate per weighted assessment factor.
**Rate per land square footage.
Approximately $341,000 in excess construction funds in the California Avenue District bond
fund for the Ted Thompson parking garage, Project 92-13, was used to reduce the tax roll
required to pay off the bonds sold to finance the project. To equalize assessments, the funds
were spread uniformly over the duration of the bonds (20 years) beginning with the 1996
assessments.
Attachment D lists changes made to the assessment rolls. The estimated assessments were
sent to property owners within the California Avenue district on May 11, 2011. A map of the
District is contained in Attachment E. Assessments were modified due to recent changes in
business site conditions (square footage, vacancy, etc.), which were brought to staff's attention
by property owners since the estimated assessments were prepared. Because the hearing itself
is the legally prescribed process by which questions about the basis of assessment and the
property owners' individual circumstances may be heard, it may be necessary to have a second
addendum available at the Council meeting that reflects changes brought to staff's attention
since the Council packet was delivered. The public hearing for the assessment district may
need to be continued if last minute information brought forward by property owners cannot be
verified and included in the amended rolls prior to the hearing.
Resource Impact
The project is funded by the assessment district and no City General Fund monies are involved.
Although assessments are generally subject to Proposition 218, this particular assessment is
exempt from Proposition 218 since all of the assessment proceeds are pledged to repay bond
indebtedness issued prior to enactment of Proposition 218. Parking district maintenance costs,
including sweeping, landscaping, signing and lighting are paid for by parking permit fees, which
were last increased in 2005 in the California Avenue Parking District. These are separate from
the funds used to pay for construction of the parking garage.
Policy Implications
Approval of this action does not represent any change to existing City policies.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1710)
Timeline
The assessments will be sent to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector in July and will appear on
the October property tax bills.
Environmental Review
Approval of assessments is exempt by from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
·A -Resolution -Cal Ave Park Bonds Plan G 2 (PDF)
·B -Parking Assessment District-Plan (DOC)
·C -Assessment Rates FY 2011-2012 (PDF)
·D -Amendments (DOC)
·E -California Avenue Parking Assessment District Map (PDF)
Prepared By:Mike Nafziger, Senior Engineer
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FINANCED BY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES USING G-BONDS
CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA
BOND ISSUE AMOUNT OF
BOND ISSUE
PURPOSE OF ISSUE DATE ISSUED DATE OF
MATURITY
INTEREST
RATE
California Avenue
Project 92-13
(Ted Thompson
Garage)
$2,055,000 Construction of a future two level parking structure on lot C-3 and the
two parcels acquired by project 86-01.
11/93 09/02/2015 3.4% -5.4%
Attachment D
CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT AMENDMENTS
PRELIMINARY ROLL
Address,
Parcel Number
Use Square
Feet
Parking
Reqd.
Parking
Prov
Assessment
92-13
No amendments
AMENDED ROLL
Address,
Parcel Number
Use Square
Feet
Parking
Reqd.
Parking
Prov
Assessment
92-13
No amendments
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1774)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Council Priority: City Finances
Summary Title: Approval of FY 2012 Budget
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012
Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program, and
Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of Five Resolutions: (1)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase; (2) Amending
Utility Rate Schedules for Fiber Optic Rate Increases; (3) Amending Utility Rate
Schedules for Wastewater Rate Increases pursuant to Proposition 218; (4)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Water Rate Increases; (5) Amending the
2010-2011 Compensation Plan for the Management and Professional Personnel
and Council Appointees; and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08
to Create a New Department of Information Technology
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following:
1.The Budget Adoption Ordinance (Attachment 1), which includes:
a.Exhibit A: the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget, previously
distributed in the May 2nd Council Packet
b.Exhibit B: amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget
c.Exhibit C: revised pages to the Table of Organization
d.Exhibit D: amendments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule
2.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase
(Attachment 2)
3.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment
3)
4.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Wastewater Rate Increase
(Attachment 4)
5.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Water Rate Increase (Attachment 5)
6.Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011
Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 11
(ID # 1774)
No. 9156 to Add Three New Positions, Change the Titles of Six Positions and Update the
Compensation for Five Positions (Attachment 6)
7.Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 2.08.240 Creating a New Department of
Information Technology (Attachment 7)
Executive Summary
The documents attached outline the amendments to the City’s Operating and Capital Fiscal
Year 2012 Proposed Budgets and Utility rate changes.
Background
The City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Operating Budget and the Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Capital Budget were submitted to City Council on May 2, 2011. During the month of
May, the Finance Committee held hearings and reviewed the Proposed Budget, including the
General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Capital Improvement Programs, and
the Municipal Fee Schedule. A total of six public hearings were held on May 3, 5, 12, 17, 24,
and 25 during which the Committee reviewed and discussed the City’s operating and capital
expenditures for the next year.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget process began with a $3.2 million General Fund budget gap. In
addition, in response Council priorities, staff included a $1 million placeholder to create the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) and a $1 million placeholder for increasing pension costs in
Fiscal Year 2013. This gap was addressed by department reductions totaling $1 million and $4.3
million in staff recommended Public Safety concessions. The Finance Committee expressed
concerns regarding the use of Public Safety concessions as a budget balancing strategy. In
response to these concerns, the Fire and Police Departments presented the committee with
budget reduction alternatives that may be utilized in the event that labor concessions do not
materialize. These memos can be found in Appendix 9 of this report.
As a result of the hearings, the Finance Committee and staff have recommended changes to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget as discussed below. Detail for these transactions are listed in
the Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget schedule
(Attachment 1, Exhibit B).
Discussion
This staff report focuses primarily on the financial changes recommended by the Finance
Committee and staff during the public hearing process that followed the submission of the
original proposed budget. Certain key non-financial changes are also highlighted in this report.
All other non-financial recommended changes to the proposed budget are described in
Appendix 6, which was distributed to the Finance Committee on May 25th, and will be
incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget.
Adjustments to Date
This section summarizes actions made by the Finance Committee during the department
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 11
(ID # 1774)
budget hearings that occurred in May and wrapped on May 25th. Detail in this section is
organized by fund then by department. The discussion below segregates changes that were
initiated by the Finance Committee from changes that are initiated by staff. A summary of Full-
Time Equivalent (FTE) changes is presented following fund detail.
General Fund
The Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget presented to City Council on May 2nd resulted in a $0.131
million contribution to the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). Changes approved by the
Finance Committee net to an increase of $13,000, resulting in a $0.144 million BSR contribution
(see Table 1). The BSR balance in Fiscal Year 2012 is projected to be $27.0 million and equals
18.46 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget. The City’s adopted reserve policy stipulates
that a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures, with a target
of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The Fiscal Year 2012 projected BSR percentage falls within
this range and meets the targeted BSR percentage.
Table 1: Amendments to the FY 2012 General Fund Proposed Budget
(in thousands)
Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning - change to BSR $131
Finance Committee Recommended Changes:
5/12 CSD Public Art maintenance (15)
5/24 COU Council benefits -align with actuals (124)
5/24 NON Offset with pension increase placeholder 124
5/25 NON Add'l funding for capital improvement (500)
Subtotal (515)
Staff Recommended Changes:
5/25 CSD Foothill Parking revenue (65)
5/24 FIR Return remaining OES funding 167
5/24 FIR Stanford revenue related to OES 252
5/12 PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
5/12 PCE Return remaining Development Center funding 14
5/5 POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
5/24 PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring)37
5/25 NON Civic Center debt service transfer 283
Subtotal 528
Ending - change to BSR $144
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
City Council
·Revised the benefits budget for City Council by $123,917. This change has a zero net
impact to the General Fund since it is offset by the pension increase placeholder that
was budgeted in the Non-Departmental budget.
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Community Services Department
·Add $15,000 for maintenance of public art
·Fund Human Service Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) administrative overhead fees
totaling $27,761 with Council Contingency
o The beginning balance of the Council Contingency Fund is $250,000. The balance
after use of Council Contingency for HSRAP administrative overhead fees is
$222,239
·Additional $0.5 million contribution to the Infrastructure Reserve
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
City Manager
·Move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754 and 1.05 FTE, to the City
Manager’s Office (no net change to General Fund).
o Includes reallocating 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment
and 0.05 FTE Assistant to the City Manager from PCE to the City Manager’s Office
Community Services Department
·Revenue decrease of $65,000 related to Foothill College parking fee. This parking fee is
not included in the City’s municipal fee schedule; at this time the City does not have
plans to implement this new parking fee
·Reinstate 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Table of Organization. See discussion in the
General Fund Full-Time Equivalents section of this report.
Fire Department
·Office of Emergency Services (OES) budget utilizes $833,325 of the $1 million
placeholder funding in the Non-Departmental budget. Remaining funding totaling
$166,675 will be added to the BSR. Changes include:
o Ongoing costs totaling $498,325, which includes adding 1.0 FTE Emergency
Services Director (salary and benefits totaling $233,325)
o One-time costs totaling $335,000
o Increase in revenue from Stanford University, $252,497
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
·Add $110,000 to the Planning and Community Environment Department budget for the
Rail Corridor project
·Development Center Transition Plan funding which utilized $0.286 of the $0.3 million in
placeholder funding. Remaining transition plan funding totaling $14,231 will be added
to the BSR. Detail for the FTE changes below are discussed in the General Fund Full-Time
Equivalents section of this report. The department proposed:
o Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II, $95,538 in salary and benefits
o Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director PCE,
$28,231 in salary and benefits
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 11
(ID # 1774)
o Add contracted building and planning technicians $162,000
·Move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City Manager’s
Office (no net change to the General Fund)
o Includes reallocating 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment
and 0.05 FTE Assistant to the City Manager from PCE to the City Manager’s Office
·Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to the Public Works Department, $146,957 in salary
and benefits
Police Department
·Add $50,000 to the Police Department budget for the Animal Services Shelter study to
determine future options for shelter.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department proposed the following changes (listed below) related to the
department’s restructuring efforts.
·Position changes to the Public Works General Fund budget that total an increase of
$109,783 in salary and benefits
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester $30,692
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $12,924
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE, $146,957
Non-Departmental
·OES funding that was budgeted in Non-Departmental totaled $1 million. The cost for the
OES Division totals $833,325 (discussed in the Fire Department section of this report).
The remaining $166,675 in OES funding will be contributed back to the BSR
·Return $282,765 to General Fund from Civic Center Debt Service Fund. The final
payment for this bond issue is March 2012 and the Civic Center Debt Service Fund has
enough in reserves for this last payment.
General Fund Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
The Finance Committee approved a net increase of 2.05 FTE to the General Fund.
·Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director as part of the proposed OES plan
·Add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II in Planning and Community Environment
totaling $95,538. This position was eliminated in the FY 2012 Proposed Budget. The
position has been reinstated and the department will utilize this position in the
Development Center. Funding for this position comes from funds set aside for the
Development Center Transition Plan and reinstating this position has no net impact to
the General Fund.
·Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Planning and
Community Environment. This change results in a budget increase totaling $28,231. The
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 11
(ID # 1774)
position will provide more general oversight to the PCE Department and manage the
department’s day-to-day operations to allow the PCE Director to facilitate organizational
issues and direct policy matters.
·Add 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department. This is a
temporary reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this
reduction in staff has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction
however, since this is a temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the
Table of Organization.
·The Public Works Department presented the Finance Committee with the department’s
reorganizational plan. Amendments to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget include:
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester $30,692
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $12,924
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957 (results in no net impact
to the General Fund)
Enterprise Funds
Changes to the Enterprise Funds Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget are listed below. These
changes result in an overall $0.477 million increase in reserve balances.
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Water Fund
·Defer funding totaling $0.5 million for the Water Recycling Facilities project (WS-07001)
from FY 2012 to FY 2013
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Refuse Fund
·Increase to contract services for the SMaRT Station $250,000
·Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst to the General Fund; 0.25 to the Storm Drain Fund;
and 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst to the Capital Improvement Fund ($99,000)
Storm Drainage Fund
·Decrease to untarped load fee revenue ($12,000)
·Decrease in operating expense for innovative projects ($143,000)
·Increase CIP for the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements (SD-10101)
$143,000
·Reallocate 0.10 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $11,009
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Internal Service Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Technology Fund
·Remove the Utilities Customer Bill Redesign project (TE-11004) funding totaling
$150,000 from FY 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget and
return funding back to the respective Enterprise Funds. This follows a Finance
Committee discussion on April 19, 2011 regarding SAP-related Capital Improvement
Projects, wherein the Finance Committee recommended removal of FY 2011 funding for
TE-11004, and subsequently FY 2012 funding
·Creation of the Information Technology Department which requires an amendment to
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. See Attachment 7 for ordinance.
Vehicle Replacement Fund
·Reallocate 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst from the Refuse Fund $27,523
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Additional $0.5 million contribution from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Move funding for the Street Improvement Project (PE-86070) in the amount of $2.0
million from FY 2012 to FY 2011
·Reclass 0.2 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $3,232
Debt Service Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Reduction in contributions from the General Fund ($282,765) and Parking District
($66,299). The Civic Center Debt Service Fund has adequate funding in reserves to pay
the final debt service payment in March 2012.
Additional Information Requested by the Finance Committee
During the May 25th Budget Wrap-Up Hearing, the Finance Committee requested information
regarding the detail of revenue received for the City’s capital improvement program.
Attachment 8 provides actual revenues for FY 2006-2010 by funding source and includes notes
on major projects funded.
The Finance Committee also requested information regarding staffing costs expensed to the
Library Bonds. To date, the City has incurred $0.6 million in project labor costs. Staff estimates
that labor costs will total $1.5 to $2 million over the life of the project.
The Finance Committee has directed staff to report back during Fiscal Year 2012 on the
following:
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 11
(ID # 1774)
·An update in September 2011 of labor negotiations for International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF). Use of the one-time OES related costs of $335,000 is postponed until
staff reports back to the Finance Committee with the labor negotiations update
·Conduct a separate study session with the Finance Committee regarding the status of
the Management/Professional Compensation Study
·Present to the Finance Committee staff’s ideas on a financially sustainable rate structure
for the Refuse Fund in July 2011
·Outsourcings or leasing options for the City’s vehicle fleet (excluding Fire, Police, and
specialty vehicles)
·A plan to move customers towards paperless Utility billing by Fiscal Year 2013.
·Return to the committee in September 2011 with a proposed process to address
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and an ongoing strategic CIP
plan
·A process or plan to perform a comprehensive review with the Finance Committee on all
impact fees in the municipal fee schedule
·Bring forward ideas and suggestions to restructure the capital and operating budget
documents
·The Library Bond allows cost for moving library collections. Staff will examine the
possibility of moving potions of the library collection into the Roth Building and attempt
to avoid moving the library collection more than once.
Compensation Plans
Three new positions, six title changes, and compensation updates for five positions are
proposed in the Management and Professional Personnel compensation plan (see Attachment
6).
Table of Organization
Amended pages to the Fiscal Year 2012 Table of Organization are included with this report (see
Attachment 1, Exhibit C). The Table has been revised to reflect the staffing changes presented
in this report. Changes reflected in the Table of Organization will be incorporated into the
relevant department organization charts and the revised organization charts will be published
in the adopted budget.
Compared to the Fiscal Year 2011 Adjusted Budget, the Proposed Budget presented to Council
on May 2nd had a net decrease of 3.5 FTE. During the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, the
Committee recommended a net increase of 1.50 FTE Citywide. These changes result in a net 2.0
FTE decrease in the Fiscal Year 2012 Amended Proposed Budget compared to the Fiscal Year
2011 Adjusted Budget. Below is a summary by fund of these changes (see Table 2). Detail for
the FTE Amendments to the Proposed Budget is discussed previously in this report within each
department section.
June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Table 2: Citywide FTE changes to FY 2012 Proposed Budget
General Enterprise Other
Fund Funds Funds Total
FY 2011 Adjusted Budget 579.00 365.72 73.88 1,018.60
Net Change (4.65) 0.70 0.45 (3.50)
FY 2012 Proposed Budget -beginning 574.35 366.42 74.33 1,015.10
Amendments to Proposed Budget 2.05 (0.80) 0.25 1.50
FY 2012 Proposed Budget -ending 576.40 365.62 74.58 1,016.60
Contracts Greater than $85,000
On May 25, 2011, the Finance Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2012 contract scopes of
professional services agreements greater than $85,000 (CMR #1672).
Municipal Fee Schedule
On May 25, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended that the Council adopt the changes to
the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule (CMR #1673) with amendments (Exhibit
D). The Finance Committee recommended two changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Municipal Fee Schedule.The two recommendations are:
·Electric Vehicle Charge stations –fee has been reduced based on the department’s
updated analysis of staff time requirements
·A footnote has been added to the User Permits –Wireless facilities fee to clarify that
100 percent of all costs incurred will be recovered
Rate Changes
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following Utility Rate
Increases:
·Storm Drain Rate Increase (Attachment 2): rates are adjusted annually based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Storm Drainage fee will increase by 1.5 percent to
reflect the annual CPI change. See CMR #1474 for additional information.
·Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment 3): rates are adjusted annually based on CPI. The
Fiber Optic Rate will increase by 1.5 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See CMR
#1541 for additional information.
·Wastewater Rate Change (Attachment 4): changed to more accurately align revenues
collected from each customer class with the cost attributable to serving that class. See
CMR #1399 for additional information.
·Water Rate Increase (Attachment 5): change is driven by water commodity costs. Cost of
service adjustments are being made to align revenues collected from each customer
class with the cost attributed to serving that class. See CMR #1628 for additional
June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 11
(ID # 1774)
information.
Resource Impact
The Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget as submitted to the Finance Committee resulted in an
increase to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) of $0.131 million. Changes
recommended by the Finance Committee and staff resulted in a net $13,000 contribution
increase to the BSR. In total, the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed budget results in a $0.144 million
transfer to the BSR (see Table 1). The projected ending balance for the BSR in Fiscal Year 2012
is $27.0 million and equals 18.46 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget. Per the adopted
reserve policy, a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of the General Fund operating expenditures,
with a target of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The projected FY 2012 ending BSR balance
of 18.46 percent of General Fund operating expenditures falls within the 15 to 20 percent range
of the adopted reserve policy and meets the targeted BSR of 18.5 percent.
As a result of the changes to the capital budget, the projected ending balance in the
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) for Fiscal Year 2012 is $4.378 million. Additional changes to the
Enterprise Funds result in an approximately $0.477 million net increase in reserve balances in
Fiscal Year 2012 from the proposed document.
Policy Implications
These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Adoption of the budget does not represent a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
·Attachment 1: Budget Adoption Ordinance with the following Exhibits:(PDF)
·Exhibit A: City Manager's Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget (PDF)
·Exhibit B: Amendments to the City Manager's Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget (PDF)
·Exhibit C : Revised Table of Organization (PDF)
·Exhibit D: Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule (PDF)
·Attachment 2: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 1.5%
CPI (PDF)
·Attachment 3: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to
Fiber Optic Rates (PDF)
June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 11
(ID # 1774)
·Attachment 4: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Wastewater
Collection Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 and Rule and Regulation 23 Governing
Wastewater Utility Regulations (PDF)
·Attachment 5: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7 Pertaining to Water Rates (PDF)
·Attachment 6: Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management
and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 (PDF)
·Attachment 7: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Creating a New Department
of Information Technology (PDF)
·Attachment 8: Capital Projects Fund Revenues Fiscal Years 2006-2010 (PDF)
·Appendix 1: Fiscal Year 2012 General Fund Summary and Reserve Balances (PDF)
·Appendix 2: Fiscal Year 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary and Reserve Balances(PDF)
·Appendix 3: Fiscal Years 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Fund Summaries and Amended
Projects (PDF)
·Appendix 4: Fiscal Year 2012 Internal Service Funds Summary (PDF)
·Appendix 5: Fiscal Year 2012 Debt Service Funds Summary (PDF)
·Appendix 6: May 25, 2011 Memorandum to Finance Committee Detailing Changes to Fiscal
Year 2012 City Manager's Proposed Budget to Date (PDF)
·Appendix 7: Memorandums Distributed "At-Places" During the Finance Committee Budget
Hearings (PDF)
·Appendix 8: Budget Hearing Presentation Slides Distributed During the Finance Committee
Budget Hearings (PDF)
·Appendix 9: Memorandums to the Finance Committee Regarding Public Safety Budget
(PDF)
·Appendix 10: Finance Committee Minutes From May 3, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 11: Finance Committee Minutes From May 5, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 12: Finance Committee Minutes From May 12, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 13: Finance Committee Minutes From May 17, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 14: Finance Committee Minutes From May 24, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 15: Finance Committee Minutes From May 25, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 16: Propostion 218 Wastewater Rate Increase Protests Letters (PDF)
Prepared By:Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
Not Yet Approved
ORDINANCE NO. ____
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(g) of Article IV of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Chapter 2.28 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the City Manager has prepared and submitted to
the City Council, by letter of transmittal, a budget proposal for
Fiscal Year 2011; and
B. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter, the Council did, on June 13 and 20, 2011, hold public
hearings on the budget after publication of notice in accordance
with Section 2.28.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
C. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8 of Division
1, of Title 7, commencing with Section 66016 of the Government Code,
as applicable, the Council did on June 13 and 20, 2011, hold a
public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Fee
Schedule, after publication of notice and after availability of the
data supporting the amendments was made available to the public at
least 10 days prior to the hearing.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the following documents, collectively referred to as “the
budget” are hereby approved and adopted for Fiscal Year 2012:
(a) The budget document (Exhibit “A”) containing the proposed
operating and capital budgets submitted on May 2, 2011,
by the City Manager for Fiscal Year 2012, entitled “City
of Palo Alto - City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed
Budget” covering General Government Funds, Enterprise
Funds and Internal Service Funds, a copy of which is on
file in the Department of Administrative Services, to
which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full
particulars thereof, and by such reference is made a part
hereof; and
(b) The Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” and made
a part hereof; and
Attachment 1
2
(c) Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization,
attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and made a part hereof;
and
(d) Revised pages of the Municipal Fee Schedule attached
hereto as Exhibit “D”; and
SECTION 3. The sums set forth in the budget for the various
departments of the City, as herein amended, are hereby appropriated
to the uses and purposes set forth therein.
SECTION 4. All expenditures made on behalf of the City,
directly or through any agency, except those required by state law,
shall be made in accordance with the authorization contained in this
ordinance and the budget as herein amended.
SECTION 5. Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2011 that are
encumbered by approved purchase orders and contracts for which goods
or services have not been received or contract completed, and/or for
which all payments have not been made, by the last day of the Fiscal
Year 2011 shall be carried forward and added to the fund or
department appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012.
SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to make
changes in the department and fund totals and summary pages of the
budget necessary to reflect the amendments enumerated and aggregated
in the budget as shown in Exhibit “B” and the Fiscal Year 2011
appropriations carried forward as provided in Section 5.
SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.04.320 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, a majority vote of the City Council is required to
adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 8. As specified in Section 2.28.140(b) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
delegates the authority to invest the City’s funds to the Director
of Administrative Services, as Treasurer, in accordance with the
City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2012.
SECTION 9. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the
changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “D”.
The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental
activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to a
payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burden
on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. All new
and increased fees shall go into effect immediately; provided that
pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, all Planning Department
Attachment 1
fees relating to a “development project” as defined in Government
Code Section 66000 shall become effective sixty (60) days from the
date of adoption.
SECTION 10. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
SECTION 11. Except as specified in Section 9, as provided in
Section 2.04.330 (a)(3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
______________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
3
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
Fiscal Year 2012
City Manager’s
Proposed Operating and
Capital Budget
These documents were originally
distributed in Council Packet.
Printed copies are available upon
request for $20 per book.
Books may be viewed at any
City of Palo Alto Library or the
City’s website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
Salary and Benefits (123,917)$ Reduce placeholder for pension/healthcare increase in FY 2013
Non-salary (833,325)Move OES budget items to Fire
Non-salary (166,675)Return OES funding to the Budget Stabilization Reserve
Transfers out 500,000 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund
Transfers out (282,765) Return Civic Center debt service to General Fund
(906,682)
906,682$
Salary and non-salary 246,754$ Move Economic Development from PCE to City Manager's Office
246,754
(246,754)$
CITY COUNCIL
Salary and Benefits 123,917$ Revise Council benefit allocation
123,917
(123,917)$
(65,000)$ Remove Foothill College Parking fees
Source Changes (65,000)
Non-Salary 15,000$ Increase Public Art Maintenance
15,000
(80,000)$
252,497$ Increase Stanford revenue related to OES program
Source Changes 252,497
Salary and Benefits 233,325$ Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director
Non-salary 265,000 Add Office of Emergency Services costs
Non-salary 335,000 Add one time OES costs - pending
833,325
(580,828)$
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
GENERAL FUND
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
FIRE
CITY MANAGER
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
6/7/2011
General Fund 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Salary and Benefits (146,957)$ Move 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to Public Works
Salary and non-salary (246,754) Move Economic Development to City Manager's Office
Non-salary 110,000 Add Rail Corridor Funding
Non-salary (14,231) Return remaining Development Center transition funding to BSR.
(297,942)
Development Center changes from $300,000 transition include:
28,231 Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
95,538 Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II
81,000 Add contracted Building Technician
81,000 Add contracted Planning Technician
297,942$
Non-salary 50,000$ Add Animal Services shelter study
50,000
(50,000)$
Salary and Benefits 30,692$ Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
Salary and Benefits 12,924 Reclass 0.8 FTE Sup., Facilities Maintenance to Mngr., Maintenance Operations
Salary and Benefits (141,340) Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager
Salary and Benefits 60,550 Reallocate 0.55 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund
Salary and Benefits 146,957 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from Planning Department
109,783
(109,783)$
Total General Fund Changes to BSR 13,342$
Salary and Benefits 3,232$ Reclass 0.2 FTE Sup. Facilities Maintenance to Mgr. Maintenance Operations
Non-salary (2,021,068) Reduce project PE86070 per BAO #5120 to fund $2,021,068 in FY2011
Transfers in 500,000 Increase transfers in from General Fund to CIP Infrastructure Reserve
Use Changes (1,517,836)
1,517,836$ Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
GENERAL FUND CIP
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
POLICE
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
6/7/2011
General Fund 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND
Non-salary
$ (73,713) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (73,713)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 73,713
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (73,713) Change in Fund Balance- Distribution
Total Electric Fund $ (73,713)
FIBER OPTICS FUND
Non-salary
$ (566) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes $ (566)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 566
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (566) Change in Fund Balance
Total Fiber Optics Fund $ (566)
GAS FUND 7
Non-salary
$ (28,390) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (28,390)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 28,390
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 28,390 Change in Fund Balance- Distribution
Total Gas Fund $ 28,390
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
Non-salary $ (9,513) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (9,513)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 9,513
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 9,513 Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Collection Fund $ 9,513
WATER FUND 7
Non-salary $ (16,902) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary (500,000) Defer WS-07001, Water Recycling Facilities Project, to
FY2013
Use Changes (516,902)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 516,902
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 516,902 Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund $ 516,902
REFUSE FUND
Salary and Benefits $ (99,082) Reallocate .9 FTE Mgmt Analyst to other Public Works
funds.
Non-salary (17,231) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary 250,000 Increase contract for SMaRT Station
Use Changes 133,687
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (133,687)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (133,687) Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund $ (133,687)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
STORM DRAINAGE FUND 7
$ (12,000) Decrease untarped load fee revenue
Source Changes (12,000)
Salary and Benefits $ 11,009 Reallocate .10 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund.
Non-salary (143,000)Decrease operating expense for innovative projects
Non-salary (3,685) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary 143,000 Increase CIP for Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain
Improvements (SD-10101)
Use Changes 7,324
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (19,324)
Fund Balancing Entries
(19,324) Change in Fund Balance
Total Storm Drainage Fund $ (19,324)
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Description
Transfers in (349,064)$ Reduce transfers from General Fund and Parking District Fund
Source Changes (349,064)
(349,064)$
Salary and Benefits 27,523$ Reallocate .25 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund
Use Changes 27,523
(27,523)$
Transfers in (150,000)$ Decrease transfers for TE-11004 project.
Source Changes (150,000)
Non-salary (150,000)$ Close Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-11004) project.
Use Changes (150,000)
-$
Dept charges
156,753$ Increase benefits resulting from position changes during Finance Committee
hearings
Source Changes 156,753$
Salary and Benefits 156,753 Increase benefits - position changes from Finance Committee hearings
Use Changes 156,753
-$
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
INTERNAL SERVICE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Amount
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CIVIC CENTER DEBT SERVICE FUND
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
GENERAL BENEFITS & INSURANCE FUND
6/7/2011
Other Funds 2012
Summary of Position Changes
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Summary of Position Changes
FTE
GENERAL FUND
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 579.50
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
POL - Community Service Officer (0.50)
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 579.00
FY 2012 Additions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
FIR - Emergency Services Director 1.00
FY 2012 Total Additions 1.60
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ATT - Senior Legal Secretary (1.00)
ATT - Claims Investigator 1.00
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (1.00)
ASD - Budget Officer 1.00
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.80)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.80
ASD - Graphic Designer (1.00)
ASD - Administrative Associate III 1.00
ASD - Budget Manager (1.00)
ASD - Chief Budget Officer 1.00
PCE - Chief Planning Official (1.00)
PCE - Assistant Director, PCE 1.00
POL - Animal Services Specialist (1.00)
POL - Animal Services Specialist II 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (1.60)
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 1.60
PWD - Managing Arborist (1.00)
PWD - Urban Forester 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
CMO - Assistant to the City Manager 0.05
EXHIBIT C
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20122
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
CMO - Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment 1.00
PCE - Administrative Associate I 0.50
PCE - Assistant to the City Manager (0.05)
PCE - Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment (1.00)
PCE - Planning Arborist (1.00)
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.35)
PWD - Management Analyst 0.55
PWD - Planning Arborist 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions 0.30
FY 2012 Elimination or Reduction
ATT - Claims Investigator (0.60)
CSD - Coordinator Recreation Programs (0.50)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.60)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.80)
PWD - Administrative Associate I (1.00)
PWD - Project Manager (1.00)
FY 2012 Total Elimination or Reduction (4.50)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS 576.40
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 365.72
FY 2011 Position Adjustments
UTL - Utilities Installer/Repairer (1.00)
UTL - Coordinator, Utility Projects 1.00
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 365.72
FY 2012 New Positions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.50
PWD - Asst Director, Environmental Services 1.00
UTL - Utilities Key Account Representative 1.00
FY 2012 Total New Positions 2.50
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.20)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.20
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Summary of Position Changes
3
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
PWD - Assistant Plant Manager 1.00
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
PWD - Operator II, WQC 1.00
PWD - Business Analyst (1.00)
PWD - Senior Technologist 1.00
PWD - Executive Assistant (2.00)
PWD - Management Analyst 2.00
PWD - Landfill Technician (1.00)
PWD - Coord, PW Projects 1.00
PWD - Mgr Environmental Compliance (1.00)
PWD - Watershed Protection Mgr 1.00
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic (1.00)
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic - Welding 1.00
UTL - Coordinator Utility Projects (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
UTL - Utility Engineering Estimator (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD (0.10)
PWD - Management Analyst (0.80)
PWD - Senior Engineer (0.50)
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions (1.40)
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
ASD - Manager Energy Risk (1.00)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (1.20)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED ENTERPRISE FUND POSITIONS 365.62
OTHER FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 73.38
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
ASD (IT) - Chief Information Officer (title change)(1.00)
ASD (IT) - Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer (title change)1.00
POL - Community Service Officer 0.50
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20124
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 73.88
FY 2012 New Positions
None
FY 2012 Total New Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD (IT) - Administrative Associate II (1.00)
ASD (IT) - Administrative Assistant 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.40)
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 0.40
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
PWD - Management Analyst 0.25
PWD - Senior Engineer 0.50
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Management 0.35
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions 1.10
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (0.40)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 74.58
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1016.60
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 5
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Table of Organization
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
GENERAL FUND
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Claims Investigator (3), (4) 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.40
Deputy City Attorney 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Secretary - Confidential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Services Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Secretary to City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Legal Secretary (4) 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00)
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 10.60 9.60 9.60 9.00 (0.60)
City Auditor
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Performance Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY AUDITOR 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
TOTAL CITY CLERK 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00
City Manager
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (5), (12) 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20126
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Administrative Associate III (2), (5)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer (17) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager (24)2.00 1.50 1.50 1.55 0.05
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt (24)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY MANAGER 10.00 9.00 9.00 10.05 1.05
Administrative Services Department
Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.00
Administrative Associate III (9) 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (8) 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.50 0.90
Assistant Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Budget Officer (6) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Business Analyst 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buyer 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00
Chief Budget Officer (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Administrator 2.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (8) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (7) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Graphic Designer (9) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Budget (10) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Real Property Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
7
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Real Property Agent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1), (6) 6.91 5.81 5.81 4.91 (0.90)
Senior Buyer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Staff Secretary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 41.95 37.49 37.49 37.69 0.20
Community Services Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Administrator Special Events 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arts and Culture Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Child Care 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Recreation Programs (14) 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 (0.50)
Cubberley Center and Human Svc Div Mgr 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Golf & Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Division Manager, Recreation & Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Rec and Youth Sciences 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Equipment Mechanic 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Maintenance Person 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Instructor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Arts 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20128
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Open Space and Parks Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maintenance Person 11.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Parks and Open Space Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Crew - Lead 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Producer Arts/Science Programs 13.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Program Assistant I (23)7.75 7.50 7.50 7.50 0.00
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Ranger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sprinkler System Repairer 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Superintendent, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Open Space 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervisor, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Recreation Program 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 94.25 74.50 74.50 74.00 (0.50)
Fire
Administrative Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Battalion Chief 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief OPS/Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
EMT Basic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00
Fire Captain 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 0.00
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00
Fire Inspector 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
9
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Hazardous Materials Fire Apparatus Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Services Director (20)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
OES Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Paramedic Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL FIRE 122.69 120.74 120.74 121.74 1.00
Human Resources Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Human Resources Assistant - Conf 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Human Resources Representative 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Manager, Employee Relations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Human Resources & Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Risk and Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Human Resources Administrator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Library Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Circulation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201210
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Division Head, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Library Assistant 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00
Library Associate 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Services Manager 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Specialist 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00
Manager, Main Library Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Librarian 8.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00
TOTAL LIBRARY DEPARTMENT 42.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 0.00
Planning and Community Environment
Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (12) 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50
Administrative Associate II (23)3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrator, Planning & Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir (18)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager (24)0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 (0.05)
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Building Inspector Specialist 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building/Planning Technician 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Planning and Transportation Official (18)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Chief Transportation Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Traffic Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Transp Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Director, Planning and Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
11
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt (24)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Managing Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permit Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planner 6.05 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00
Plan Checking Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Planning Arborist (21)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Planner 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Transportation Manager 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transportation Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 48.85 44.60 44.60 43.05 (1.55)
Police Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Animal Attendant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Animal Control Officer 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00
Animal Services Specialist (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Animal Services Specialist II (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Assistant Chief of Police 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Communications Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communication Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 0.00
Community Service Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Crime Analyst 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy Director Technical Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Parking Enforcement Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201212
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Parking Enforcement Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00
Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Police Officer 50.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 0.00
Police Officer Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist II 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Police Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Coordinator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Property and Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Safety Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Superintendent, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Police Services 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL POLICE 161.50 157.00 156.50 156.50 0.00
Public Works Department
Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (16) 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.70 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
13
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Public Works 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.00
Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Public Works Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00
Equipment Parts Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facilities Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Maintenance - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Analyst (22)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (16) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Manager, Maintenance Operations (15)0.12 0.12 0.12 1.72 1.60
Managing Arborist (19)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Planning Arborist (21)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Project Manager (16)1.75 1.75 1.75 0.75 (1.00)
Senior Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00
Senior Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201214
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (16)0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 (0.60)
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Facilities Management (13), (15)1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00 (1.95)
Supervisor, Inspec/Surveying, Public Works 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Traffic Control Maintainer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance II 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forester (19)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 63.67 58.57 58.57 56.37 (2.20)
GENERAL FUND AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 622.51 579.50 579.00 576.40 (2.60)
1 Add 0.10 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate III
3 Drop 0.6 FTE Claims Investigator
4 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to Claims Investigator
5 Reclass 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III
6 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to Budget Officer
7 Title change from Director, ASD to Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer
8 Reclass 0.8 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE from Utilities Fund
9 Reclass 1.0 FTE Graphic Designer to Administrative Associate III
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Budget Manager to Chief Budget Officer
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist to Animal Services Specialist II
12 Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from City Manager's Office to Planning, Community and Environment
13 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from Other Funds
14 Eliminated position due to budget constraints
15 Reclass 1.6 FTE Supervisor Facilities Manager to Mgr Maintenance Operations
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
15
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
16 Eliminated position due to department reorganization
17 Title change from Assistant City Manager to Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
18 Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning and Transportation Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir
19 Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist and add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
20 Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director
21 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from Planning and Community Environment to Public Works
22 Reallocate 0.55 Management Analyst from Enterprise Funds - Public Works
23 FTE was added back during Budget Hearings
24 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment and 0.05 FTE Assistant to City Manager from
Planning and Community Environment to the City Manager's Office
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Public Works Department
Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater
Treatment
Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Assistant Director, Environmental Services (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Plant Manager (5) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.00
Asst Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Engineer 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst (7) 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.13 (1.00)
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Coordinator Environmental Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, PW Projects (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Coordinator Recycling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201216
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Electrician - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00
Executive Assistant (8) 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 (2.00)
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 0.00
Industrial Waste Assistant Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Laboratory Tech, Water Quality Control Plant 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Landfill Technician (10) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Management Analyst (8), (16)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20
Manager, Environmental Compliance (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Environmental Control Program 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Manager, Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 0.00
Manager, Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Operator II, WQC (6) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Refuse Disposal Attendant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Engineer (15) 2.45 2.75 2.75 2.25 (0.50)
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
17
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Operator, Water Quality Control 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Senior Technologist (7) 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.13 1.00
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (9) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Quality Control Operations (5), (6) 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 (2.00)
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Truck Driver 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator II 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Protection Mgr (11) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS - ENTERPRISE 114.63 115.01 115.01 114.51 (0.50)
Utilities Department
Administration, Electric, Gas, Wastewater
Collection and Water
Account Representatives 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Accounting Specialist 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Assistant Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Resource Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Resource Planner 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201218
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (4)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Assistant Director Customer Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Admin Svc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Res Mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Business Analyst (13), (14) 2.87 2.87 2.87 4.87 2.00
Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cathodic Protection Technician/Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Electric Underground Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Inspector Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Safety & Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Projects (13) 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Customer Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (4) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Director, Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electric Project Engineer 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrical Assistant I 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Electrician - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Electrician - Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Engineering Manager, Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Mgr, Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
19
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Equipment Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Field Service Person Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gas System Technician 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Mechanic (12) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic - Welding (12) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Manager Utilities Telecommunication 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Energy Risk (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Field and Customer Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr, Customer Svc and Meter Reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Marketing Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr, Util Operations Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Rates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Marketing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Meter Reader - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Shops Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00
Planner 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Power Engineer 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Project Engineer 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Project Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Resource Planner 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201220
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1) 0.60 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.50
Senior Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Market Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Resource Originator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Resource Planner 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00
Senior Utilities Field Services Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Water System Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Operations & Programs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervising Project Engineer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Utility Construction Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Util Meter Readers & Field Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water, Gas, Wastewater 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Transmission 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
System Operator Scheduler 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Accounting Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Compliance Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Engineer Estimator (14) 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Utilities Engineer Estimator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Field Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
21
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Utilities Installer/Repairer 11.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Welding 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Utilities Key Account Representative (3) 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
Utilities Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Rate Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utility Compliance Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Utility Compliance Technician - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utility Market Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Water Meter/Cross Connection Technician 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Water Meter Representative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Meter Repairer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
TOTAL UTILITIES 241.61 250.71 250.71 251.11 0.40
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS POSITIONS 356.24 365.72 365.72 365.62 (0.10)
1 Drop 1.0 FTE Manager, Energy Risk and add 0.50 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services
3 Add 1.0 FTE Utilities Key Account Representative
4 Reclass 0.20 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE to General Fund
5 Reclass 1.0 FTE Supervisor WCQ Operations to Assistant Plant Manager
6 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC
7 Reclass 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist
8 Reclass 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst, PW
9 Eliminate 0.2 FTE Supervisor PW Operations due to department reorganization
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protection Mgr
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201222
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
12 Reclass 1.0 FTE Maintenance Mechanic to Maintenance Mechanic, Welding
13 Reclass 1.0 FTE Coordinator Utility Projects to Business Analyst
14 Reclass 1.0 FTE Utility Engineering Estimator to Business Analyst
15 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer to Other Funds
16 Reallocate 0.8 FTE Management Analyst to General Fund (0.55 FTE) and Other Funds (0.25 FTE)
OTHER FUNDS
Printing and Mailing Services
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Mailing Services Specialist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 1.00 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor Reproduction and Mailing 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES 4.05 1.57 1.57 1.57 0.00
Technology
Administrative Assistant (1)0.07 0.07 0.07 1.07 1.00
Administrative Associate II (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Administrative Associate III 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00
Business Analyst 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Dir of Information Technology/Chief Info Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Manager, Information Technology 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00
Technologist 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY 30.65 30.41 30.41 30.41 0.00
Equipment Management
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
23
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 0.00
Special Revenue
Accounting Specialist 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
CDBG Coordinator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00
Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE 1.15 1.65 2.15 2.15 0.00
Capital
Administrative Associate I 1.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Associate Engineer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Cement Finisher - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00
Engineering Technician III 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Management Analyst (5)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 0.25
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201224
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (4)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Manager, Maintenance Operations (6)0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.40
Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Project Manager 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Senior Engineer (2) 2.25 2.05 2.05 2.55 0.50
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (4) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Facilities Management (3), (6)0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 (0.05)
Supervisor, Inspection/Surv Public Works 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
TOTAL CAPITAL 24.67 23.67 23.67 24.37 0.70
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 76.60 73.38 73.88 74.58 0.70
1 Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant
2 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer from Public Works-Enterprise Funds
3 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from General Fund
4 Eliminate position due to department reorganization
5 Reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from Enterprise Funds - Public Works
6 Reclass 0.4 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management to Manager Maintenance Operations
TOTAL CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1,055.35 1,018.60 1,018.60 1,016.60 (2.00)
Authorization is given to create no more than 7.0 FTE temporary overstrength positions. Overstrength positions are
justified by business needs and provide a vacancy to allow for cross training of a critical classification. These interim
positions facilitate organizational transitions and succession planning in the cases of long-term disability, retirement,
and critical vacancies. This action responds to the City Auditor's recommendation number four in the Audit of Work-
ers Compensation (Issued 04-09-05).
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Registrations 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Junior Museum and Zoo Group Admission (for organized groups of 15 to
25, larger groups shall be subdivided with additional group admission
fee)
Fee:$50.00 - $100.00
Non-resident:Fee plus up to 50%
Fee:$50.00-$125.00
Non-resident: Fee plus up to
50%
$607,384.00 $25,000.00 4%
Tours
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood School
Districts, $3.00/student Non-Resident:
$75.00/group
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood
School Districts, $3.00-
$4.50/student Non-Resident:
$528,574.00 $27,500.00 5%
Infant (age 2 and under)
none Fee:$0.00 - $2.00
Non-Resident: $0.00-$3.00
$551,212.00 $448,140.00 81%
Youth (17 and under)
Fee $20.00-$27.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
Fee $25.00-$35.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
see above see above see above
Organic Garden Plots $.40/square feet/year $.50/square feet/year $110,779.00 $26,290.00 24%
Lucie Stern Community Center
Ballroom (Room S) Fee: $114.00/hour
Non-Resident: $171.00/hr
Fee: $132.00/hour
Non-Resident: $198.00/hr
$258,727.00 $110,000.00 43%
Community Room (Room R) Fee: $78.00/hour
Non-Resident: $117.00/hr
Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room (Room D) Fee: $66.00/hour
Non-Resident: $99.00/hr
Fee: $76.00/hour
Non-Resident: $114.00/hr
see above see above see above
Kitchen Fee: $24.00/hour
Non-Resident: $36.00/hr
Fee: $28.00/hour
Non-Resident: $42.00/hr
see above see above see above
Patio Fee: $70.00/hour
Non-Resident: $105.00/hr
Fee: $80.00/hour
Non-Resident: $120.00/hr
see above see above see above
Exclusive Use Package - 5 hour minimum, includes facility attendant Fee: $1,130.00/ for 5 hours; $226.00
for each additional hour
Non-Resident:$1,695.00/ for 5 hours;
$339.00 for each additional hour
Fee: $260.00/hr
Non-Resident:$390.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room and Patio Package Fee: $86.00/hour
Non-Resident: $129.00
Fee: $100.00/hr
Non-Resident:$150.00/hr
see above see above see above
Community Room and Patio Package Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00
Fee: $110.00/hr
Non-Resident:$165.00/hr
see above see above see above
2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Theatre Performance
Standard 2 hour fee
Non-profit: $270.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $185.00/hr
Basic rate: $430.00/hr
delete
Each additional hour
Non-profit: $85.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $65.00/hr
Basic rate: $120.00/hr
delete
Theater Rehearsal Dressing Rooms
Standard 1 hour fee $40.00 delete
Each additional hour $40.00 delete
Theatre building rate
Non-profit: $45.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $36.00/hr
Basic rate: $60.00/hr
delete
Dressing Room, M-3 (6)
$17.00/hr Non-profit:$17.00/hr
Basic Rate:$20.00/hr
$214,032.00*$200,000.00 93%
Dressing Room, M-2 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
Dressing Room, M-4 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
2 hour production fee $150.00 delete
Exhibit D
Open Space and Parks
Package Rentals
Facility: Lucie Stern Community Center
Rentals and Reservations
Cubberley Community Center: Facility Rental
Meeting/Activity Rooms
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Arts and Science
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Resident Coupon Book-10 tickets (available to Palo Alto Residents only)*
Facility Admissions - Community Garden
Recreation Actiivities
Swimming Pools - Rinconada Complex and PAUSD pools when operated by the City - Ages 2 & under -- Free
1) Resident, n Non-profit music/dance/theatre groups, in-residence at Cubberley, may receive a 25% discount on room rental fees when used for weekly rehearsals.
Cubberley Community Theatre
Production Fee
Summary Page 1 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Each additional hour $75.00 delete
Performance Day Package (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $840.00
Basic rate: $1,200.00
see above see above
Additional Performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $210.00
Basic rate: $300.00
see above see above
Additional performance hours past four per performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Additional performance hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $56.00
Basic rate: $80.00/hr
see above see above
Production Day Package (3) (7) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $700.00
Basic rate: $1,000.00
see above see above
Additional Production hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $105.00
Basic rate: $150.00/hr
see above see above
Rehearsal day Package (3) (8) (9) (11)
none Non-profit: $525.00
Basic rate: $750.00
see above see above
Additional rehearsal hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- resident none $34.00/hr (1)$850.00 (1)
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- non-resident none $51.00hr.(1)$650.00 (1)
Inter-Library Loan delete
Inter-Library Out of State Loan delete
Building Permit Fees 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
$1,000,000.01 and up $8,964.92 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $5.83 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds $10,000,000.00
an alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangement may be made at
the discretion of the Chief Building
Official .
$8,964.92 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $5.83 for
each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds
$5,000,000.00 an alternative fee
arrangement may be established
by the Chief Building Official to
achieve full cost recovery.
title change title change
Electric vehicle charge station
Residential (All types) none $160..00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 1 &2) none $370.00 plus $92.50 for each
additional station
$6,660.00 $6,660.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 3 &4) none $560.00 plus $140.00 for each
additional station
$5,040.00 $5,040.00 100%
Residential Installations System $200.00 each $320.00 $7,680 $7,680 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW)$10.00 for each photovoltaic panel $565.00 $1,130 $1,130 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW - 49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $1,890.00 $7,560 $7,560 100%
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
7- Production is defined as videography of onstage activity without a live audience, or similar usage
8 - A 20% discount is given for bookings on off-peak days Monday through Thursday
* Does not reflect annual lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District for use of facility and covenant to not develop - approximately $7 million payment in FY 2012
6 - M-2, M-3 and M4 dressing room fees are assessed only when used as dressing rooms for theatre rentals
5- Performance defined as activity onstage with a live audience present. Performance packages include one performance block up to 4 hours time.
4 - Rental groups may use volunteers in unshering positions subject to approval by the theatre manager and compliance with all rules and procedures
3 -Fee package includes event Supervisor, the M-11 drsesing room and all dedicated theatre equipment. Additional technical staff may be required.
Theatre Packages
Photovoltaic systems
Photovoltaic Installations Systems (Does not include plan check fee)
Electrical Permits
9- 20% discount for half-day rentals,(6 or less hours either concluding before 2 pm or startting after 4 pm) or rentals of 6 hours or less booked before or after an existing rental on the same day
11- All other building use falls under this category, including rehearsals, load-in and restore days
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
1 - Department used cost per square foot for a similar room in Lucie Stern Community Center and applied 50% discount for non-profits
Summary Page 2 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Commercial installations System (>49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $3,775.00 $7,550 $7,550 100%
Graywater Systems
Clotheswasher System none $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 100%
Simple System none $55.00 plus plan review at cost
$405.00 $405.00 100%
Complex System none $85.00 plus plan review at cost
$765.00 $765.00 100%
Permit and Application Extension Extension of Building Permit or
Building Permit Application
$50.00 $50.00 title change
Application Reactivations of Expired Building Permit Application $150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
$150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (for Final Inspection
Only)
$335.00 $335.00 or original Building
Permit fee, whichever is less
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (All Others)$335.00 or building permit fee 50% of original Building Permit
Fee not to exceed the full cost to
perform remaining inspections
as determined by the Chief
Building Official.
$2,500 $2,500 100%
Residential:
A. Single Family and Two Family New constructions plus additions >
1.250 sf1, and rebuilds
City Verification Review: $604.00
Outside Verification Review: $160.00
City Verification Review: $604
Outside Verification Review:
$160.00
title change
B. Single Family and Two Family, existing home additions or rebuilds >
1,250 sf1
City Verification Review: $544.00
Outside Verification Review: 100.00
Delete
C. B. Single Family and Two Family, Any existing home renovations,
rebuilds and/or additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and/or >
$100,000 valuation.
City Verification Review: $50.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$50.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
D. C.. Multi-Family New Construction of 3 or More (attached) Units1 City Verification Review: $1,062.00
(1-10 units), $1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units) Outside
Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 (1-10 units),
$1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units)
Outside Verification Review:
$618.00
title change
E. D. Multi-Family renovations or alterations > 50% of the existing unit
sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the
following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system1
City Verification Review: $1,062.00
Outside Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 Outside Verification
Review: $618.00
title change
F. Multi-Family Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual
units > 250 sf and valuation > $100,000 in a single unit1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review:n/a
Delete
Non-Residential:
A. New construction > 1,000 sf (including additions to existing buildings
and rebuilds)
City Verification Review: $1334.00
Outside Verification Review:$800.00
City Verification Review:
$1334.00 Outside Verification
Review:$800.00
title change
B. New Construction > 500 sf and < 5,000 sf (including additions to
existing buildings)
City Verification Review: $1,044.00
Outside Verification Review: $600.00
Delete
C. B. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $871.00
Outside Verification Review:427.00
City Verification Review:
$871.00 Outside Verification
Review:427.00
title change
C. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do not
fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$327.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
Documents 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Zoning interpretation, or other zoning letter Administrative extensions
and zoning letters
$150.00/hour; 1 hr min. $150.00/hour; 1 hr min. title change
Development Impact Fees
Plumbing Permits
General and Miscellaneous Fees
1 Plus, if applicable, Construction & Demolition Ordinance Fee in the Refuse Fund under Special Fees on page 21-4.
Green Building Program Fees
Summary Page 3 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Parks Residential: Single family1
$9,971/residence (or
$14,890/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $6,527/unit
(or $3,300/unit smaller than or equal
to 900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,234 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $1,915 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$10,360/residence (or
$15,471/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,782/unit (or $3,429/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,399
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel $1,990 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$15,468.00 $15,468.00 100%
Community Centers Residential: Single family1
$2,585/residence (or $3,870/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $1,700/unit (or $858/unit
smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $239 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $108 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$2,686/residence (or
$4,021/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$1,766/unit (or $891/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $248 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof
$7,424.00 $7,424.00 100%
Libraries Residential: Single family1
$902/residence (or $1,344/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi‐
family $539/unit (or $296/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $228 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $96 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$937/residence (or
$1,396/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi‐family
$560/unit (or $308/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $237 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $100 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$2,451.00 $2,451.00 100%
Use Permits - Wireless Facilities (1)Initial Deposit of $3500 plus
legal fees and other Application
Fees
$35,000 $35,000 100%
Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100%
Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $150.00 $150.00 100%
Transportation Fees
Residential Parking Permit Program
1. 100% of processing costs will be recovered plus Environmental Impact Assessments and other entitlements necessary to complete the project.
Summary Page 4 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Attachment 2
This page is intentionally left blank.
110324 jb 0130695
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water
Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 1.5% CPI Per
Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2012
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet D-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility
Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this rate increase is being imposed to offset the
effects of inflation on labor and material costs pursuant to the annual inflationary fee escalator
provision of the Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure, which was approved by a majority of Palo
Alto property owners on April 26, 2005.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that modification and approval of this change to the
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
110324 jb 0130695
operating expenses is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15273(a).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
________________________________________________________
Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Public Works
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
110324 jb 0130695
Attachment 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT A
*Not Yet Approved*
1
110411 dm 6050726
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 of the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Fiber Optic
Rates
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets EDF-1-1 and EDF-1-2, attached hereto and incorporate herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2.Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2 (Dark Fiber Connection Fees) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet EDF-2-1, attached hereto and incorporate herein. The foregoing Utility
Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3.The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
ATTACHMENT A
*Not Yet Approved*
2
110411 dm 6050726
SECTION 4.The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Acting Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
ATTACHMENT B
DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 07-01-20101
Supersedes Sheet No.EDF-1-1 dated 7-01-20092010 Sheet No.EDF-1-1
lA.APPLICABILITY:
This rate schedule applies to customer accounts established prior to September 18, 2006, unless the customer elects
to apply the EDF-3 rate to the entire customer account. This rate applies to Fiber Optic services from the City of
Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) pertaining to the City's network (Backbone and associated connections).
B.TERRITORY:
Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the City.
C.FEES:
1. DARK FIBER BACKBONE LICENSE FEES:
The values or ranges for each of these price components are shown below:
(1) Fiber Price………………………………………………………………. $307.0411.65/FM/month
(2) Quantity discount ……………………………………………………… $0 to $59.84/FM/month
(3) Buffer tube discount……………………………………………………….. $0 to $59.84/FM/month
(4) Route length discount…………………………………………………….. $0 to $77.80/FM/month
(5) Ring topology discount………………………………………………………$0 to $23.94/FM/month
(6) Length of term discount…………………………………………………… $0 to $46.80/FM/month
Minimum Backbone License Fee
$464.3971.36/month
Project Minimum Backbone Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006 in which
the project connects with the Backbone.
Description for Discounts:
Quantity discount: based on an array of discounts for quantities of fiber licensed on a specific path.
Buffer tube discount: discount for numbers of full buffer tubes licensed on a specific path.
Route length discount: based on the route length licensed on a specific project.
Ring topology discount: The ring topology discount for customers contracting for complete rings.
Term discount: based on an array of discounts for contracts greater than one and less than ten years.
2. DARK FIBER LATERAL CONNECTION FEES:
Customer responsibilities and fees for drop and custom cable construction are described in the CPAU Rules
and Regulations, Rate Schedule EDF-2, project proposals and other associated documents. In all cases, the
Licensee shall pay an annual Drop/Custom Cable Management Fee based on the follow per foot fees:
(1) Drop Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers) …………………………… $0.02-$0.06/ft/month
(2) Custom Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers)……………………….. $0.30/ft/month
(3) Fees for additional Drop or Custom Cable fibers (each additional set of 12-Fibers) $0.06/ft/month
ATTACHMENT B
DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 07-01-20101
Supersedes Sheet No.EDF-1-2 dated 7-01-20092010 Sheet No.EDF-1-2
Minimum Drop or Custom Cable Management Fees $229.4632.90/month
Minimum Drop Cable Management Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006.
3. EARLY TERMINATION FEES:
If the Licensee chooses to terminate for convenience the License Agreement or the term of any project
under the License Agreement, then the Licensee shall pay the applicable termination payment as specified
in this schedule or in the License Agreement, as provided below.
Unless otherwise provided in the License Agreement, the Licensee shall pay a termination fee in one of the
following amounts, whichever is less:
·Annual fee of the contract year that the Licensee chooses to terminates in full without term
discounts, or
·Remaining fees of the project term as indicated in the License Agreement.
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. All fees must be paid to the City in accordance with the terms of the Dark Fiber License Agreement, the
customer’s project proposals and all the applicable Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
2.All fees and minimum charges are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied
annually, except as defined by Section D.3 of this Rate Schedule. Discounts will not be modified by
changes to CPI.
3.The CPI adjustment will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The adjustment is calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the
December CPI in the year rates last changed.In the event that the change between December CPI’s
indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the
upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the last year of change as the new base year for purposes of
calculation.
{End}
ATTACHMENT C
DARK FIBER SERVICE CONNECTION FEES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-20101
Supersedes sheet No. EDF-2-1 dated 7-01-200910 Sheet No.EDF-2-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all connections, expansions, and upgrades to the City's Dark Fiber network (Backbone).
B.TERRITORY:
All territory within the incorporated limits of the City and land owned or leased by the City.
C.FEES:
1.ADVANCE ENGINEERING FEES:
Advance engineering (AER) fees must be paid to start the engineering process and are non-refundable. The
fees will be credited against the estimated project cost prior to the collection of the project construction
fees.
(1) Commercial/Industrial AER minimum fee......................................................................$733744.00
(2) Special conditions (requiring expert assessment)............................................................By Estimate
2. ESTIMATED SERVICE CONNECTION AND RECONFIGURATION FEES
All estimated service connection and reconfiguration fees must be paid prior to the scheduling of any
construction or reconnections to the City's Dark Fiber network.
(1) Service connection (Interconnection) fee......................................................By Estimate
(2) Reconfiguration Fees.....................................................................................By Estimate
Labor rates are subject to change as stated in the Utility Rate Schedule C-1.
D. NOTES:
1.The Customer is responsible for the installation and maintenance of all ducts and pathways from the facility to
the property line in compliance with City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations and contract agreements.
2.The City shall not be held liable for delays or interruptions in service, but will make reasonable efforts to
provide timely continuous service.
3.All fees are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied annually. The CPI adjustment
will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)for the San Francisco-Oakland-
San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adjustment is
calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the December CPI in the year rates last
changed.In the event that the change between December CPI’s indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is
required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the
last year of change as the new base year for purposes of calculation.
{End}
Attachment 4
This page is intentionally left blank.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110126 dm 6051529
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Wastewater Collection Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2
and Rule and Regulation 23 Governing Special Wastewater
Utility Regulations
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June
_, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed wastewater collection rate amendments; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public
hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property
owners subject to the proposed wastewater collection rate amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-1 (Domestic Wastewater Collection and Disposal Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheet S-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheets S-2-1 and S-2-2, attached hereto and incorporated
herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1,
2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rule and Regulation 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations) as amended, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved and adopted. The foregoing Utility Rule
and Regulation, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110126 dm 6051529
SECTION 5. The Council finds that a restructuring of wastewater collection rates to
meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
DOMESTIC RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-1-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No S-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied domestic residential dwelling unit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater service.
C. RATES:
Per Month
Each domestic dwelling unit..................................................................................................
$24.6527.91
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Any dwelling unit being individually served by a water, gas, or electric meter will be
considered as continuously occupied.
2. For two or more occupied dwelling units served by one water meter, the monthly wastewater
charge will be calculated by multiplying the current wastewater rate by the number of
dwelling units.
3. Each developed separate lot shall have a separate service lateral to a sanitary main or
manhole.
{End}
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-1 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all establishments other than domestic residential dwelling units.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Restaurants
(A) Minimum charge per connection per month..................................................
$24.6527.91
(B) Quantity Rates:
Based on metered water, per 100 cubic feet.................................................. $9.29
8.31
2. Any establishment discharging sewage in excess of 25,000 gallons or quality equivalent of
sewage per day as determined by metered water usage and sampling requiring special
discharge monitoring as defined in Rule and Regulation 23, Section D.
(A) Collection System Operation, Maintenance, and Infiltration Inflow:
$3,706.351,978.61 per million gallons ($2.771.48 per 100 cubic feet of metered water).
(B) Advanced Waste Treatment Operations and Maintenance Charge:
$2,422.41,336.906 per million gallons ($1.821.00 per 100 cubic feet of metered
water).
(C) $ 247.56 per 1000 pounds of COD1
(D) $ 596.62 per 1000 pounds of SS2
(E) $ 3,983.85 per 1000 pounds of NH3 3
1 COD stands for Chemical Oxygen Demand
2 SS stands for Suspended Solids
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-2 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-2
(F) $ 14,781.25 per 1000 pounds of toxics*4
*Toxics include sum of chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc.
3. All Other Establishments
(A) Minimum Charge per connection per month
$24.6527.91
(B) Quantity Rates: Based on metered water per 100 cubic feet...................................................$ 5.07 4.75 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Upon application from establishments maintaining extensive irrigated landscaping, the
monthly charge will be based upon the average water usage for the months of January,
February and March. If a water meter is identified as exclusively serving irrigation
landscaping, such meter will be exempted from sewer charge calculations. 2. Sewage metering facilities may be required, in which case service will be governed by terms
of a special agreement. 3. Charges for large discharges (25,000 gallons per day or greater) will be determined on the basis of sampling as outlined in Utilities Rule and Regulation 23C. However, for purposes
of arriving at an accurate flow estimate, discharge meters, if installed, can be utilized to
measure outflow for billing purposes. Annual charges will be determined and allocated monthly for billing purposes. 4. Dischargers of Unmetered Contaminated Groundwater Quantity rates for collection and treatment of the contaminated groundwater will be based on
the same rates as defined under Section C(.3) of this rate scheduleapplicable to metered
usage for customers discharging less than 25,000 gallons of sewage per day. Discharge
permits are issued by the Environmental Compliance Manager at the Water Quality Control
Plant, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto. 5. Industrial Waste Discharge Fee
3 NH3 stands for Ammonia
4 Toxics include sum of chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: Times NewRoman
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-3 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-3
The following fees, as defined in section 16.09.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, will be
required for the issuance of an Industrial Discharge Permit, including any Exceptional Waste
Permits (This fee may be reduced to $250 for a one-time batch discharge permit).:
(A) Small, non-categorical facilities ........................................................$250425
(B) Non-categorical / small categorical with
only minor pollutant concerns .....................................................$1,250750
(C) Categorical or Significant Industrials Users
with ability to impact the RWQCP..............................................
$1,2502,100
{End}
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 1
A. GENERAL
In addition to the general requirements outlined in Rule and Regulation 18 for Utility Service
Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises, the following is required:
B. HAULED LIQUID WASTE
The discharge of hauled liquid wastes is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.09.110. The
following Rules and Regulations are to implement this Provision.
1. PURPOSE
To provide a means of treating certain waste prohibited from entering the Wastewater
system, City of Palo Alto Public Works Department operates a Hauled Liquid Waste
Treatment Site at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Certain wastes may
be hauled to this site for treatment and disposal.
2. WASTES ACCEPTABLE FOR TREATMENT
a. Hauled septic tank wastes
b. Portable toilet pumpings
c. Grease Trap wastes
3. HOURS OF OPERATION
Hours of operation for the Liquid Waste Hauler’s Treatment Site shall be as established by
the Manager, Water Quality Control.
4. WASTE IDENTIFICATION
The hauler must provide a liter sample, taken in the presence of a waste treatment plant
operator, of the contents of each tank to be discharged. The nature and source of the waste
will be verified before the truck is permitted to unload. If laboratory analysis indicates that
the material is not as represented (septic tank waste or toilet piping from a domestic source)
the hauler’s permit may be revoked.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 2
5. HAULING OPERATIONS
a. To discharge at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, a hauler must:
1. Obtain a Trucker’s Discharge Permit from the Manager, Water Quality
Control;
2. File with CPAU a Certification of insurance and a hold harmless clause:
3. Post a bond or cash deposit with CPAU’s appropriate division.
b. The Trucker’s Discharge Permit shall be issued for twelve-month periods and is
revocable for the violation of any of these Rules. The fee for Trucker’s Discharge
Permits shall be as stated in CPAU Rate Schedule S-4.
c. Insurance policies in force with limits of liability shall not be less than those
specified below as follows:
Coverage for Which Limits of
Insurance is Afforded Liability
Worker’s Compensation & Compensation
Employer’s Liability Statutory
Bodily Injury Liability $1,000,000 each Person
except automobile including $1,000,000 each occurrence
the following coverages:
Coverage for Which Limits of
Insurance is Afforded Liability
Protective, Completed Operations,
Board Form Contractual and
Personal Injury
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 3
Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence
except automobile including
the following coverages:
Protective, Completed Operations,
Board Form Contractual and
Personal Injury
Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence
except automobile including
the following coverages:
Protective Completed Operations
and Board Form Contractual
Bodily Injury & Property Damage $1,000,000 each Person
Liability Automobile $1,000,000 each occurrence
d. The hauler must agree to save and hold harmless CPAU, its officers, agents, and
employees from any liability of any nature whatsoever caused in whole or in part, by
the negligence of the hauler, or his agents, or employees, arising out of such
operation.
6. BILLING
Waste Haulers will be billed directly for grease, septic tank and portable toilet wastes.
7. REFUSAL OF WASTES
CPAU reserves the right to reject any Load of hauled waste under the following conditions:
a. If the waste is not properly identified
b. If there is not sufficient storage capacity at the plant for the Load
c. For reasons of public health or safety at the discretion of the Manager, Water Quality
Control Plant.
d. If the Load contains waste materials not authorized by these Regulations.
C. MAINTENANCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 4
Depending on whether the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right of way or in an
easement, the Customer may be responsible for a portion of the lateral or the entire lateral. (A
lateral is the pipe connecting a building’s plumbing system with the City's Wastewater main.)
1. CITY WASTEWATER MAIN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
If the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right of way, the Customer is
responsible for the upper portion of the lateral, from their home or structure up to and
including the connection to the City Wastewater cleanout box, as shown on the diagram
below. In cases where a cleanout at the property line does not exist, the City is responsible
for the portion of the lateral between the property line and the Wastewater main.
2. CITY WASTEWATER MAIN IN AN EASEMENT
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 5
City Wastewater mains located in easements are often, but not always, located at the rear of
the property rather than under the public street. If the City Wastewater main is located in an
easement, CPAU will be responsible for the maintenance of the Wastewater main. The
Customer is responsible for maintaining the Wastewater lateral including but not limited to:
clearing any stoppages and any clean up related to lateral backups. The diagram below
illustrates the Customers area of responsibility.
3. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OF CITY
WASTEWATER MAIN
These rules apply no matter where the City’s Wastewater main is located.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 6
a. If Wastewater maintenance results from a violation of the Municipal Code and/or these
Regulations, CPAU may assign responsibility to the user, and refuse to perform such
maintenance.
b. The Customer will be responsible for replacing non-plastic Wastewater laterals when
building a new structure or constructing additions/remodels that have a value greater
than 50% of the current value of the existing structures on the lot. Reconnection to a
City Wastewater lateral will only be allowed on existing plastic pipe laterals meeting
current WGW Utility Standards. All laterals constructed of non-standard pipe materials
must be replaced, per the WGW Utility Standards, from the main up to and including the
cleanout at the property line at the fees listed in Rate Schedule S-5, or by the Customer’s
contractor at the Customer’s expense.
c. Private sewer mains and laterals are the responsibility of the Customer or Property
Owner up to and including the connection to the City Wastewater main or manhole.
d. The Customer will be responsible for the on-site Wastewater Collection System in
accordance with the Municipal Code, including:
1. Preventing storm Water, roof or yard drainage, basement, foundation or under-
drainage from being discharged into the Wastewater Collection System, unless a
permit is granted by Regional Water Quality Control Plant. In addition, any
plumbing or piping that is connected or could be connected that would allow the
future discharge of storm Water or ground Water into the Wastewater Collection
System is prohibited.
2. Maintaining the condition of the on-site Wastewater Collection System so that it
is water tight and does not allow the infiltration of groundwater.
3. Keeping the clean-out box at ground level and visible. If after a 30 day notice from
CPAU the Customer has not made the clean-out box accessible, CPAU may
remedy the inaccessibility by performing the work and charging the Customer the
actual cost incurred.
4. Installing, maintaining, and ensuring proper usage of Grease Control Devices in
accordance with the Sewer Use Ordinance 16.09.103. If the source of grease
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 7
contamination in the Wastewater Collection System can be linked to a particular
Customer, the Customer may be held responsible for cleaning the Wastewater
System, including any associated costs or damages incurred by the City.
5. Limiting the Water inflow rate to the Wastewater Collection System during fire
system testing to 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates must be diverted to a detention
tank to limit the flow rate to 30 GPM.
6. Limiting Wastewater ejector pumps usage so that the following conditions are met:
The pump(s) output capacity may not exceed 100 GPM. The Wastewater lateral
must change to a 4” gravity flow lateral at least 20’ from the City-owned clean out.
The velocity in the 4” gravity flow lateral must not exceed 3 feet per second. The
tank and float shall be set up such that the pump run time does not exceed 20
seconds or 33 gallons pumped during each cycle.
7. Installing an approved backwater valve per the latest adopted version of the
California Plumbing Code 710.0 when the fixtures or drains connected to the
Wastewater system are less than one foot above the next upstream Wastewater
main manhole cover. The upstream Wastewater main manhole rim elevation shall
be shown on the plans.
4. NOTIFICATION TO CPAU
If a Wastewater stoppage occurs, the Customer shall notify CPAU. CPAU will then
determine if the stoppage is in the portion of the system maintained by CPAU or the
Customer. CPAU will clear stoppage from the property line or clean out to the main.
D. SAMPLING OF INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES IN EXCESS OF 25,000 GALLONS PER DAY
In order to properly apportion costs of operation and maintenance of the RWQCP to the large
industrial or commercial users who, as determined by the Environmental Compliance Division of the
RWQCP, are dischargers of chemicals or effluent of a content and/or quality as to require special
monitoring and charges, it is essential to determine both the quantity and quality of Wastewater
produced by each user discharging 25,000 gallons per day or its equivalent so identified.
The following is adopted as a fair and equitable method of developing the necessary criteria:
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 8
1. FLOW
The quantity Charge shall be based upon the metered Water served to the industrial or
commercial user being billed under Section D of this Rule. Exceptions will be made for the
following:
a. For Customers with one or more cooling towers, the volume of evaporated Water
associated with cooling (inflow less outflow) may be used to offset flow calculations
for Wastewater billing. To be eligible for such offsets, the Customer must comply
with the following items:
1. Inflow Water data
(a) Customer must have inflow Water Meter(s) on all cooling
tower inlet(s);
(b) Meter(s) must be annually certified by County Department of
Weights and Measures;
(c) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along
with annual Meter Reads;
2. Outflow Water data
(a) Five (5) cycles of concentration will be assumed for outflow
calculations;
(b) Customers whose cycles of concentration are greater than five
(5) and who want to have this reflected in their calculations
must have outflow Meter(s) installed;
(c) Outflow Meter(s), if installed and used for purposes of
calculation, must be annually certified by County Department
of Weights and Measures;
(d) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along
with annual Meter Reads;
3. Data acquisition and submittal
(a) Customer is responsible for reading and recording each inflow
Meter(s) flow (and each outflow Meter, if applicable) on a
monthly basis;
(b) Meter Reads should be performed at approximately the same
time each month;
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 9
(c) The following data, at a minimum, must be recorded at each
reading:
i. Date of read
ii. Inflow read(s) for each inflow Meter
iii. Outflow read(s) for each outflow Meter (if applicable)
(d) The City of Palo Alto reserves the right to periodically review
Customer's Meter(s) for accuracy;
4. Participation rules and restrictions
(a) Customer must have six (6) months of data in the first year to
be eligible for participation;
(b) Customer must annually submit twelve (12) months of data
thereafter;
(c) Inflow data (and outflow data, if applicable) must be
submitted to the Utilities Customer Service Division
annually by May for consideration in calculations for July
(the start of the City's fiscal year);
b. In cases where the user has extensive landscape irrigation and summer
monthly consumption exceeds the average monthly consumption of January,
February, and March by more than 50 percent (50%), the average of the
January, February, and March consumption shall be used for calculating
wastewater discharge for the remaining months of the year.
c. If an outflow Meter has been installed, such metered outflow will be used to
determine flow in lieu of recorded water meter consumption.
2. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AMMONIA
a. Measurements of the concentration of these constituents shall be taken from
24-hour composite samples collected periodically for each industrial
discharger being billed under Section D of this Rule discharging in excess of
25,000 gallons per day to the wastewater collection system.
1. The constituent concentrations found in these samples and previous
samples shall be averaged to provide the basis for establishing the
Wastewater Treatment Charge to be levied to the discharger being
sampled.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 10
2. All samples shall be analyzed at the laboratory of the RWQCP.
Treatment Charges will be based upon the quantity and concentration
found in the waste stream monitored.
b. If an establishment’s piping configuration, or other physical considerations,
render representative Effluent sampling prohibitively complex or infeasible,
then CPAU shall set the establishment’s level of sewage effluent constituents
for billing purposes at the average effluent levels of industries in CPAU, or
where feasible, at the average effluent constituent levels of similar
establishments.
c. Sampling results are intended to provide an estimate of the quality of
Effluent discharge by the facility. Sampling results can vary significantly
depending on the facility processes operating on the day of sampling. If the
annual sampling results in combination with the flow data indicate a revised
annual bill to the Customer, the amount of the increase or decrease shall not
exceed 25 percent. The 25 percent limitation is independent of any change in
rates or Charges to Rate Schedule S-2.
(END)
Attachment 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility
Rate Schedules W-1, -3, W-4 and W-7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
June _, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed water rate increases; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the
public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and
property owners subject to the proposed water rate increases;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-3-1 and W-3-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to
read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet
operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60
Tier 2 usage ........................................................................................................................ 6.08
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)...................................................................................... 7.64
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 6.50
Deleted: 12.27
Deleted: 19.37
Deleted: 77.65
Deleted: 130.60
Deleted: 260.43
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 3.949
Deleted: (All usage over 100% of Tier
1)
Deleted: 5.624
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level
of 0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29 ccf.
For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 33
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection....................................................................................................... $7.27
6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13
8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53
10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.20
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: $ 7.00
Deleted: $ 10.75
Deleted: $ 15.75
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2
5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 ........................................................................................................................ $4.486
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................ 4.946
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Per ccf
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $6.325
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
ATTACHMENT 6
** NOT YET APPROVED **
110531 sh 8261606
1
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by
Resolution No. 9156 to Add Three New Positions, Change
the Titles of Six Positions and Update the Compensation
for Five Positions
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9156, is hereby amended to add three new
positions, change the titles of six positions and update the compensation for five positions, as set
forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay
period including July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ______________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Human Resources
ATTACHMENT 6
** NOT YET APPROVED **
110531 sh 8261606
2
EXHIBIT A
Annual Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes - Effective July 1, 2011
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
171 Management Analyst
(compensation correction) TBD 7,286 87,443 42.04
107
Assistant City Manager / Chief Operation
Officer
(title change from Assistant City Mgr)
14 16,619 199,430 95.88
39 Watershed Protection Manager
(title change from Manager Environmental
Compliance)
TBD
9,948
119,378
57.39
181
Supervisor Water Quality Control
Operations
(compensation change)
37 8,542 102,502 49.28
49 Chief Budget Officer
(compensation & title change from Budget Manager) TBD 9,949 119,388 57.39
81 Director, Administrative Services / Chief
Financial Officer
(title change from Director, Administrative Services)
15 16,219 194,633 93.57
TBD Budget Officer
(new position) TBD 8,456 101,479 48.78
TBD
Assistant Director of Environmental
Services
(new position)
TBD 12,021 144,252 69.35
86 Urban Forester
(compensation & title change from Managing
Arborist)
35 8,989 107,869 51.86
128
Director, Information Technology/Chief
Information Officer
(Title and salary grade change from Chief
Information Officer)
16 14,519 174,221 83.76
TBD Emergency Services Director
(new position) TBD 11,484 137,808 66.25
Attachment 7
This page is intentionally left blank.
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Add Section 2.08.240 Creating a New Department of
Information Technology
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08 (Officers and Departments) of Title 2 (Administrative
Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 2.08.240 as follows:
2.08.240 Department of Information Technology.
(a) The department of information technology shall be organized and administered
under the direction of a director of information technology who shall be accountable to the city
manager. The duties of the director of information technology shall be as follows:
(1) To provide leadership to the City Council, City Manager and Directors on
alignment of technology with City initiatives, policy and strategic objectives;
(2) To direct and manage interdepartmental technology governance, planning and
coordination activities to accomplish specific City-wide objectives;
(3) To make presentations and prepare reports and plans;
(4) To coordinate with the City Manager, Directors and business managers to
address problems and capitalize upon opportunities as they arise;
(5) To develop and implement organizational policies and procedures regarding
appropriate usage of technology within the organization;
(6) To initiate and develop internal and external partnerships to leverage City
technology investments;
(7) To develop and present funding strategies to support technology investments;
(8) To provide direct oversight and direction on mission critical City-wide
technology;
(9) To negotiate and review complex proposals and contracts for purchase of
Information Technology (IT) products and services, and to develop partnership agreements;
(10) To establish and maintain a working environment conducive to positive morale,
individual style, quality, creativity, and teamwork;
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 2
(11) To serve as a member of leadership team, and addresses City-wide policy,
management and strategic issues, including information security and other Cyber risks;
(12) To formulate, recommend and administer policies and procedures governing the
operation of the Information Technology (IT) Department. Establish long-range goals and
implementation plans for services provided by the IT Department;
(13) To plan, develop and direct a comprehensive long-term strategic plan for
automated systems needs for the City of Palo Alto, including centralized computer applications,
personal computers, and telecommunications functions;
(14) To oversee automated systems within the City, including prioritizing requests for
applications development or enhancement, hardware and software standards, equipment
acquisition and replacement;
(15) To coordinate technical staff placed within individual City departments;
(16) To position the City to effectively respond to the rapidly changing technological
environment;
(17) To be responsible for planning, preparing and administering the Information
Technology Department budget, including Operating and Capital budgets;
(18) To be responsible for the future direction of the Information Technology
Department, ensuring the coordination of the department’s effort with the needs of the
organization;
(19) To manage projects to include oversight of funding allocations, oversight and
coordination of resources;
(20) To perform such other duties as may be required.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions
of the Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 3
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date
of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Human Resources
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment 8
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Attachment 8
Capital Projects Fund Revenues Fiscal Years 2006 - 2010
FY FY FY FY FY
Revenue Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Library Bond Proceeds 59,071
Investment Income 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Unrealized gain/loss on investments 10 -10
Interest Income Fiscal Agent 45 47 38 9
a American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)638
b Federal Grants 89 46 1,152 162 396
c State of California 1,716 759 2,003 2,725 585
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Grants 62
d Donations 20 209 383
e Property Damage 4 26 34 40 147
f From Other Agency 1,548 1,115 96 12 78
Stanford - Other Revenue 31 54 27
Connection Charges 38 15 16 25 2
Other Misc.29
Development Agreement Fee 6
Transfers from Other Funds:
Trf from General Fund 6,212 8,736 11,807 14,648 9,900
g Trf from Water Fund 100 971 4
h Trf from Electric Fund 1,303 672 270 234 65
i Trf from Gas Fund 40 83 9
j Trf from WasteWater Collection Fund 150 71 4
k Trf from Refuse Fund 390
Trf from Fiber Optics 11 4
Trf from Public SVCs 55
Trf from Development Impact Fees Charleston-Arastradero 82 82 82
l Trf from Development Impact Fees - Parks 467 135 620 1,090
m Trf from Gas Tax Fund 641 899 756 485 1,314
n Trf from Parking District California Ave. 200 94 67
Trf from Parking District University 200 200
o Trf from Stanford Research Park/El Camino 690
Trf from Assets Seizure Fund 18
p Trf from Law Enforcement Services Fund 100
$14,210 $13,762 $18,947 $21,764 $73,776
Note
a Funds used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070)
b
c
d
e Funds used to repair Alma Bridge overpass guardrail.
f Funds from PAUSD used for school site irrigation
g Funds used for Cubberley Turf Renovation (CIP PE 07007) $900k and Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $171k
h
i Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $123k
j Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $221k
k Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005)
l Funds used for Park Restroom Installation (CIP PE-06007) and Cubberley Turf Renovation (CIP PE-07007)
m
n Funds used for Ted Thompson Garage Improvements ( CIP PF-06001)
o Funds used for Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (CIP PL-05002) $250k
p Funds used for Crime Scene Evidence Collection Vehicle (CIP PD-08000)
Funds used for Street Improvements (CIP PE-86070) $3,309k, Safe Routes to School (CIP PL-00026) $245k, and Thermoplastic
Lane Marking & Striping (CIP PO-11001) $250k
Fund from Friends of Lytton Plaza used for Lytton Plaza Renovation (CIP PE-08004). Funds from Bill Bliss Family used for Art in
Public Places (CIP AC-86017)
Funds from HUD used for Animal Shelter Expansion & Renovation (CIP PE-04010) $357k. Funds from FEMA used for Library &
Community Center Temporary Facilities (CIP PE-09010) 39K in 2010. Funds from Dept of Energy Grant used for Photovoltaic Design
and Installations (CIP PE-05001) $1,152 in FY 2008
Funds from State of California proposition 42 traffic & congestion used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070). Funds from State of
California proposition 1b used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070), Homer Avenue Under crossing (CIP PE-01021), and Hoover
Park Improvements (CIP PE-07002)
Funds used for Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements (CIP PF-01002) $63k, Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-
08005) $501k, Photovoltaic Design and Installations (CIP PE 05001) $1,740k and Homer Avenue Under crossing (CIP PE-01021)
$225k
6/3/2011
Appendix 1
This page is intentionally left blank.
General Fund Summary
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 13
General Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Sales Tax 17,991 18,218 19,507 20,246 739
Property Tax 25,982 25,907 25,323 26,052 729
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 8,204 804
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,002 4,269 267
Utility Users Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 35
Other Taxes and Fines 1,634 2,330 2,137 2,330 193
Charges for Services 19,513 20,008 20,924 21,841 917
Permits and Licenses 4,799 4,593 5,101 5,778 677
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,318 (19)
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,776 13,914 137
From other agencies 333 155 222 155 (67)
Charges to Other Funds 11,017 10,622 10,678 10,505 (173)
Other Revenue 2,360 1,490 1,585 1,428 (158)
TOTAL REVENUES $122,513 $120,748 $122,816 $126,899 $4,083
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,678 19,606 928
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $144,524 $139,433 $141,493 $146,504 $5,011
General Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201214
Expenses
City Attorney 2,583 2,369 2,390 2,355 (35)
City Auditor 958 982 989 1,006 16
City Clerk 1,455 1,093 1,335 1,479 144
City Council 287 142 143 319 176
City Manager 2,282 2,178 2,407 2,512 105
Administrative Services 7,873 6,293 6,468 6,514 47
Community Services 20,490 20,032 20,147 20,711 564
Fire 27,733 27,007 27,813 29,780 1,967
Human Resources 2,707 2,817 2,849 2,919 70
Library 6,388 6,609 6,675 6,944 269
Planning and Community Environment 9,350 9,320 9,980 10,021 41
Police 28,841 30,579 30,941 31,918 977
Public Works 12,529 13,084 13,127 13,007 (120)
Non-Departmental 8,745 5,970 5,490 5,038 (451)
TOTAL EXPENSES $132,219 $128,475 $130,753 $134,523 $3,770
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,422 860 (562)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,978 1,175
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $146,857 $139,399 $141,977 $146,360 $4,383
NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $(2,333) $33 $(484)$144 $628
EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Salaries and Benefits 93,979,629 88,545,459 90,158,774 92,070,036 1,911,262
Contract Services 9,115,612 10,180,114 11,011,954 11,296,566 284,612
Supplies and Materials 2,875,040 3,241,892 3,288,578 3,205,892 (82,686)
General Expense 9,343,262 10,021,636 9,918,010 10,897,509 979,499
Rents and Leases 699,385 735,706 713,756 830,869 117,113
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,739,653 452,119 442,098 459,805 17,707
Allocated Charges 14,466,638 15,298,268 15,220,167 15,762,343 542,176
Operating Transfers Out 4,737,252 1,121,819 1,421,819 859,504 (562,315)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900,212 9,802,334 9,802,334 10,977,510 1,175,176
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $146,856,683 $139,399,347 $141,977,490 $146,360,034 $4,382,544
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Fund Summary
15
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Changes
FY 2011
BAO’s
Projected
06/30/11
FY 2012
Projected
Changes
Projected
06/30/12
Reserves
Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Activity:
BSR 27,396 33 (516) 26,913 144 27,057
Other Reserve Activity:
Encumbrance & Reappropriation 3,778 3,778 3,778
Inventory of Materials & Supplies 3,661 3,661 3,661
Notes Receivable, Prepaid Items, & Interfund Advances 2,920 2,920 2,920
TOTAL RESERVES $37,755 $33 $(516) $37,272 $144 $37,416
Appendix 2
This page is intentionally left blank.
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20126
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Electric
Fund
Fiber
Optic
Fund
Gas
Fund
Wastewater
Collection
Fund
Water
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Storm
Drainage
Fund
Wastewater
Treatment
Fund
Airport
Fund Total
Revenues
Net Sales 109,963 2,609 42,013 14,485 29,366 23,947 5,536 12,566 0 240,485
Interest Income 4,014 310 948 480 971 301 148 499 0 7,669
Other Income 11,230 740 1,871 904 2,859 3,952 130 8,016 0 29,702
Bond Proceeds 000 0000 00 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $125,207 $3,659 $44,832 $15,868 $33,196 $28,199 $5,815 $21,081 $0 $277,856
Expenditures
Utility Purchases and Charges 69,846 0 19,397 7,954 15,774 13,000 0 0 0 125,970
Salaries and Benefits 11,079 928 4,635 2,074 5,339 4,060 1,005 9,509 0 38,629
Contract Services 4,306 158 4,850 178 740 6,058 373 1,877 0 18,540
Supplies and Materials 811 18 465 222 461 141 103 1,422 0 3,642
Facilities and Equipment Pur-
chases 75 063 1 810 8 10 0 174
General Expense 4,070 25 914 78 435 227 15 411 0 6,176
Rents and Leases 3,939 27 341 202 2,896 4,298 6 0 0 11,709
Allocated Charges 8,344 405 3,910 1,958 3,116 3,255 606 4,709 0 26,304
Debt Service 8,966 0 948 129 3,338 623 950 818 0 15,772
Subtotal $111,436 $1,561 $35,522 $12,795 $32,105 $31,673 $3,066 $18,756 $0 $246,915
Equity Transfer 11,587 0 6,006 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,593
Capital Improvement Program 8,685 500 7,821 4,274 4,369 6,246 2,639 56 0 34,590
Operating Transfers Out 299 9 170 88 104 74 18 105 0 867
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $132,007 $2,070 $49,518 $17,158 $36,578 $37,993 $5,723 $18,918 $0 $299,965
TO/FROM RESERVES $(6,800) $1,588 $(4,687) $(1,289) $(3,382) $(9,794) $92 $2,163 $0 $(22,109)
Enterprise Fund Reserves
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 7
Enterprise Fund Reserves
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Electric Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 9,205 377 9,582 6,355 - 12,710
Supply Rate Stabilization 41,931 (1,319)40,612 31,018 - 62,035
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Subtotal $111,920 $(6,800)$105,120
Gas Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 10,048 (9,631)417 2,676 -5,353
Supply Rate Stabilization 3,215 4,944 8,159 4,665 - 9,330
Debt Service Reserve 952 0 952
Subtotal $15,215 $(4,687)$10,528
Wastewater Collection Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 5,850 (1,289)4,561 2,156 - 4,311
Subtotal $6,850 $(1,289)$5,561
Water Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 15,148 (3,382)11,766 4,614 -9,229
Debt Service Reserve 3,348 0 3,348
Subtotal $19,496 $(3,382)$16,114
Refuse Fund
Rate Stabilization (5,285) (3,694)(8,979) 2,462 - 4,924
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
Subtotal $(4,627) $(3,694)$(8,321)
Storm Drainage Fund
Rate Stabilization 245 92 337
Subtotal $245 $92 $337
Enterprise Fund Reserves
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20128
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,747 182 1,929 1,929 (max.)
Rate Stabilization (2,526) 1,981 (545) 3,050 - 6,100
Subtotal $(779) $2,163 $1,384
Fiber Optics Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 9,406 1,588 10,994 670 - 1,675
Subtotal $10,406 $1,588 $11,994
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,009)$142,717
Emergency Plant Replacement 6,747 182 6,929
Rate Stabilization 87,237 (10,333)76,904
Debt Service Reserve 4,300 0 4,300
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Shasta Rewind Loan 000
Conservation Loan 000
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,009)$142,717
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Liability 10,648 (6,100)4,548
TOTAL RESERVES AND FULLY-FUNDED LIABILITY $169,374 $(22,109)$147,265
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Appendix 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 88
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
CAPITAL FUND $33,937 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $93,345
Total Reimbursements (25,762)(5,151)(3,355)(3,608)(3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $8,176 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $52,030
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,347 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,262
Total Reimbursements (817)(286)(286)(286)(286)$(1,961)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
Total Reimbursements (1,695)(2,783)(3,785)(3,870)(3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
Total Reimbursements (200)(200)(200)(200)(200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
Total Reimbursements (710)(720)(730)(752)(790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
WATER FUND $4,369 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $57,856
Total Reimbursements (767)(776)(785)(795)(8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $3,602 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $45,983
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201289
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
Total Reimbursements (740)(750)(761)(771)(794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
TOTAL CIP COSTS (ALL FUNDS)$70,338 $56,355 $57,732 $59,620 $63,836 $307,881
Total Reimbursements (30,690)(10,666)(9,902)(10,282)(17,438)$(78,979)
NET CIP COSTS $39,647 $45,689 $47,830 $49,338 $46,397 $228,902
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
Revenues
Bond Proceeds 59,071 1,400 2,303 16,150 13,847
Other Agencies 78 1,210 1,210 5,828 4,618
State of California 585 0 164 0 (164)
Federal Grants 1,033 0 1,099 0 (1,099)
Stanford University 27 0 0 0 0
Investment Income 1,002 1,035 1,035 1,075 40
Other Revenue 532 0 275 0 (275)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $62,329 $3,645 $6,086 $23,053 $16,967
Operating Transfers In
General Fund 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,978 1,175
Street Improvement Fund 1,315 750 750 2,150 1,400
Developers Impact Fee-Park Fund 0 220 220 0 (220)
Utility Funds 86 153 263 0 (263)
California Avenue Parking District Permits Fund 67 0 0 0 0
Public Donation Fund 0 0 55 0 (55)
Charleston Arastradero Safety Impact Fees Fund 82 82 82 47 (35)
Law Enforcement Services Fund 0 0 30 0 (30)
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $11,450 $11,007 $11,202 $13,175 $1,973
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $73,779 $14,652 $17,288 $36,228 $18,940
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits 3,331 3,365 3,464 3,387 (77)
Capital Project Expenditures 20,361 17,708 19,939 30,550 10,611
SUBTOTAL EXPENSES $23,692 $21,073 $23,403 $33,937 $10,535
Operating Transfers Out 4,357 0 747 0 (747)
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $28,049 $21,073 $24,150 $33,937 $9,788
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $45,730 $(6,420)$(6,862)$2,291 $9,152
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE YEAR-END BALANCE $8,648 $2,547 $2,087 $4,378 $2,291
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 90
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201291
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
KEY
Shaded areas denote new projects
TBD To Be Determined
Italicized text indicates reimbursement
Capital Fund
Buildings and Facilities
PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Pre-
venter Installation 250 0 0 0 0 $250
PF-12005 Council Conference Room
Renovations 125 0 0 0 0 $125
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Replacement 0 0 0 151 0 $151
PF-16000
Cubberley Community Cen-
ter Site-Wide Electrical Sys-
tems Replacement
0 0 0 150 1,000 $1,150
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo
Improvements 0 0 0 0 849 $849
AC-12001
Junior Museum & Zoo
Perimeter Fence and Foot-
path
50 0 0 0 0 $50
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electri-
cal Systems Replacement 0 0 170 0 0 $170
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center
Facilities Study 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop
Space Improvements 375 0 0 0 0 $375
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities
Act Compliance 150 100 100 100 100 $550
PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvement 0 0 0 267 0 $267
PF-01003 Building Systems Improve-
ments 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improve-
ments 100 500 0 0 0 $600
PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot
Maintenance 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet
Replacement 0 80 0 0 0 $80
PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and
Electrical Upgrades 0 150 1,300 0 0 $1,450
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 92
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes
Replacement 105 105 105 105 105 $525
PF-10002 Lot J Structure Repair 500 0 0 0 0 $500
PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical Sys-
tem Upgrade 0 100 400 0 0 $500
PE-11000 Main Library New Construc-
tion and Improvements 16,150 0 0 0 0 $16,150
Bonds (16,150)$(16,150)
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center
Improvements 0 0 341 550 0 $891
PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker
Room 0 0 0 300 0 $300
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 150 150 150 150 150 $750
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improve-
ments 0 90 600 0 0 $690
NET TOTAL BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES $2,105 $1,475 $3,366 $1,973 $2,404 $11,323
Parks and Open Space
PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park
Improvements 674 0 0 0 0 $674
PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Miti-
gation Program 200 0 0 0 0 $200
PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and
Road 0 0 292 0 0 $292
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Mainte-
nance 75 75 25 25 25 $225
PO-12002
LATP Site Development
Preparation and Security
Improvements
250 0 0 0 0 $250
PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground 1,300 0 0 0 0 $1,300
Local Agency Grant (1,000)$(1,000)
PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for
Soccer Field 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan
and Design 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improve-
ments 65 0 0 0 0 $65
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201293
PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing
Fields Netting 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave.
Irrigation Alternatives 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PG-06003
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Perimeter
Landscaping
150 150 150 150 150 $750
PE-06010 City Parks Improvements 0 440 200 200 200 $1,040
OS-07000 Foothills Park Road
Improvements 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements
(formerly PE-07001)95 0 0 0 0 $95
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfac-
ing and Repair 0 100 100 100 100 $400
OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and
Ponds Maintenance 50 0 60 0 60 $170
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Ame-
nities 136 150 164 175 175 $800
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emer-
gency Repairs 75 75 75 75 75 $375
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation 0 220 0 220 0 $440
Development Impact Fees (220)(220)$(440)
PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improve-
ments 0 1,260 0 0 0 $1,260
PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements
(formerly PE-11004)100 0 0 0 0 $100
PE-14000 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer
Turf Replacement 0 100 625 0 0 $725
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 30 30 30 30 30 $150
PE-10002 Ventura Community Center
and Park 25 0 0 0 0 $25
NET TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE $2,775 $2,380 $1,721 $755 $815 $8,446
Streets and Sidewalks
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs 250 250 250 250 100 $1,100
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking
Improvements 750 250 225 225 225 $1,675
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 94
Gas Tax Fund (750)(250)(225)(225)(225)$(1,675)
PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck
Replacement 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PL-04010
Bicycle & Pedestrian Trans-
portation Plan - Implemen-
tation Project
50 50 50 50 50 $250
PL-11002 California Avenue - Transit
Hub Corridor Project 1,175 0 0 0 0 $1,175
Local Agency Grant (1,175)$(1,175)
PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Cor-
ridor Project 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 0 $4,000
PL-00026 Safe Routes to School 297 100 100 100 100 $697
Gas Tax Fund (100)(100)(100)(100)(100)$(500)
Local Agency Grant (528)$(528)
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 755 725 719 716 710 $3,625
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements 130 135 140 145 150 $700
General Fund (130)(135)(140)(145)(150)$(700)
PE-86070 Street Maintenance 1,408 3,754 3,754 3,754 3,754 $16,422
Street Improvement Fund (1,300)(1,300)(1,300)(1,300)(1,300)$(6,500)
PE-06011 Street Median Improve-
ments 0 156 156 156 156 $624
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and
Striping 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS
Upgrades 200 205 210 215 220 $1,050
General Fund (200)(205)(210)(215)(220)$(1,050)
NET TOTAL STREETS AND
SIDEWALKS $982 $4,734 $4,729 $5,725 $3,470 $19,640
Miscellaneous
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replace-
ment 180 180 180 0 0 $540
AC-86017 Art in Public Places 50 50 50 50 50 $250
General Fund (50)(50)(50)(50)(50)$(250)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201295
LB-11000 Furniture and Technology
for Library Projects 3,125 1,600 0 0 0 $4,725
Local Agency Grant (3,125)(1,600)$(4,725)
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - Gen-
eral Fund CIP Projects 3,387 3,553 3,731 3,918 4,113 $18,703
General Fund (1,254)(1,291)(1,330)(1,353)(1,394)$(6,622)
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $2,314 $2,442 $2,581 $2,564 $2,719 $12,621
CAPITAL FUND $33,937 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $93,345
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(25,762)$(5,151)$(3,355)$(3,608)$(3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $8,176 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $52,030
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Miscellaneous
VR-16000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 0 2,874 $2,874
VR-15000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 3,254 0 $3,254
VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 1,332 0 0 0 $1,332
VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 2,182 0 0 $2,182
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Technology Fund
Technology
TE-99010 Acquisition of New Comput-
ers 75 75 75 75 75 $375
TE-11005 Implementation of New
Utility Rate Structures 100 0 0 0 0 $100
Enterprise Funds (100)$(100)
TE-11001 Library Computer System
Software 350 0 0 0 0 $350
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementa-
tion 150 215 0 0 0 $365
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure
Replacement 100 100 100 100 100 $500
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 96
Enterprise Funds (20)(20)(20)(20)(20)$(100)
Stanford (16)(16)(16)(16)(16)$(80)
TE-00010 Telephone System Replace-
ment 1,422 0 0 0 0 $1,422
Enterprise Funds (531)$(531)
TE-11004 Utilities Customer Bill Rede-
sign 0 0 0 0 0 $0
TE-10001
Utilities Customer Billing
System Continuous
Improvements
150 250 250 250 250 $1,150
Enterprise Funds (150)(250)(250)(250)(250)$(1,150)
NET TOTAL TECHNOLOGY $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,347 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,262
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(817)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(1,961)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
Electric Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connec-
tions 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 $11,000
Others (850)(900)(925)(950)(1,000)$(4,625)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$1,150 $1,200 $1,275 $1,350 $1,400 $6,375
Distribution System - System Improvements
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer
Replacement 1,000 0 0 0 0 $1,000
EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tenny-
son 4/12 kV Conversion 0 120 400 0 0 $520
EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV
Tie 0 0 300 100 750 $1,150
EL-98003 Electric System Improve-
ments 1,200 2,300 2,400 2,450 2,500 $10,850
Others (145)(150)(160)(170)(180)$(805)
EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS 100 0 0 0 0 $100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201297
EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12
kV Conversion 150 0 0 0 0 $150
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo
Area 350 0 0 0 0 $350
EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12 0 80 700 300 0 $1,080
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 0 400 270 0 0 $670
EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16 0 300 0 0 0 $300
EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20 0 0 500 500 0 $1,000
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Over-
head Transmission System 700 700 700 0 0 $2,100
EL-13002
Relocate Quarry Road/Hop-
kins Substations 60 kV Line
(Lane A & B)
0 0 0 100 750 $850
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 200 50 55 60 65 $430
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV
Conversion 0 400 0 0 0 $400
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology
Installation 0 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 $11,000
Enterprise Funds (1,333)(2,000)(2,000)(2,000)$(7,333)
EL-11002
St. Francis/Oregon/Ama-
rillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conver-
sion
0 450 0 0 0 $450
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improve-
ments 165 170 180 185 190 $890
EL-89038 Substation Protection
Improvements 250 260 270 280 290 $1,350
EL-08001
UG District 42 - Embar-
cadero Rd. (Between Emer-
son & Middlefield)
0 0 150 2,000 500 $2,650
Others (750)$(750)
EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/
Embarcadero 0 150 2,000 500 0 $2,650
Others (700)$(700)
EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/
El Camino Real 150 800 150 0 0 $1,100
Others (400)$(400)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 98
EL-11010
UG District 47 - Middlefield,
Homer Avenue, Webster
Street and Addison Avenue
1,500 200 0 0 0 $1,700
Others (700)$(700)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $4,920 $6,497 $8,215 $6,555 $5,865 $32,052
General Services - Street Lights
EL-10009 Street Light System Conver-
sion Project 800 800 800 800 0 $3,200
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
STREET LIGHTS $800 $800 $800 $800 $0 $3,200
General Services - Communications
EL-89031 Communications System
Improvements 120 125 130 135 145 $655
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
COMMUNICATIONS $120 $125 $130 $135 $145 $655
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,695)$(2,783)$(3,785)$(3,870)$(3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
Fiber Optics Fund
Commercial Telecommunications
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Con-
nections 200 200 200 200 200 $1,000
Others (200)(200)(200)(200)(200)$(1,000)
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network Sys-
tem Improvements 300 300 300 200 200 $1,300
NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201299
Gas Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 710 720 730 752 790 $3,702
Others (710)(720)(730)(752)(790)$(3,702)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Distribution System - System Improvements
GS-16000 GMR Project 26 0 0 0 0 570 $570
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equip-
ment 0 64 0 68 0 $132
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine 0 45 250 0 0 $295
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 306 315 325 335 352 $1,633
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements 200 206 212 219 230 $1,066
GS-10001 GMR - Project 20 5,970 0 0 0 0 $5,970
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 0 6,150 0 0 0 $6,150
GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 468 0 3,200 0 0 $3,668
GS-13001 GMR - Project 23 0 482 0 3,300 0 $3,782
GS-14003 GMR-Project 24 0 0 492 0 3,465 $3,957
GS-15000 GMR-Project 25 0 0 0 542 0 $542
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equip-
ment 0 34 0 36 0 $70
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreim-
bursed 167 172 178 184 193 $893
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(710)$(720)$(730)$(752)$(790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
Water Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WS-80013 Water System Extensions 420 430 440 450 460 $2,200
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 100
Others (700)(709)(718)(728)(750)$(3,605)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(280)$(279)$(278)$(278)$(290)$(1,405)
Distribution System - System Improvements
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 0 0 0 0 344 $344
WS-09000 Seismic Water System
Upgrades 2,700 3,200 3,820 0 0 $9,720
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data 100 100 100 100 0 $400
Enterprise Funds (67)(67)(67)(67)$(268)
WS-11003 Water Distribution System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-80015 Water Meters 215 222 229 236 243 $1,145
WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities 0 500 500 8,000 16,000 $25,000
Others (8,000)$(8,000)
WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating
Improvements 0 860 590 0 0 $1,450
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant
Replacement 217 222 229 236 243 $1,147
WS-11004 Water System Supply
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 0 3,152 0 0 0 $3,152
WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 305 0 3,245 0 0 $3,550
WS-13001 WMR - Project 27 0 314 0 3,245 0 $3,559
WS-14001 WMR - Project 28 0 0 324 0 3,345 $3,669
WS-15002 WMR - Project 29 0 0 0 334 0 $334
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $3,882 $8,927 $9,406 $12,534 $12,639 $47,388
WATER FUND $4,369 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $57,856
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(767)$(776)$(785)$(795)$(8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $3,602 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $45,983
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012101
Wastewater Collection Fund
Collection System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 340 350 361 372 383 $1,806
Others (740)(750)(761)(771)(794)$(3,816)
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(400)$(400)$(400)$(399)$(411)$(2,010)
Collection System - System Improvements
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 29 0 0 0 0 340 $340
WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting
Machine 33 0 0 0 0 $33
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole
Rehab/Replacement 565 570 617 636 655 $3,043
WC-15002 Wastewater System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 25 300 2,912 0 0 0 $3,212
WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 26 0 310 3,000 0 0 $3,310
WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 24 2,830 0 0 0 0 $2,830
WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 27 0 0 320 3,090 0 $3,410
WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 28 0 0 0 330 3,183 $3,513
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $3,934 $4,004 $4,155 $4,281 $4,410 $20,784
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(740)$(750)$(761)$(771)$(794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
Refuse Fund
Miscellaneous
RF-11001 Landfill Closure 6,100 0 0 0 0 $6,100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 102
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assess-
ment & Retrofit 0 700 1,050 1,100 1,100 $3,950
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replace-
ment 0 500 1,450 1,500 1,550 $5,000
NET TOTAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
$0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Storm Drainage Fund
Collection System - System Improvements
SD-11101
Channing Avenue/Lincoln
Avenue Storm Drain
Improvements
1,590 1,680 1,430 0 0 $4,700
SD-06104
Connect Clara Drive Storm
Drains to Matadero Pump
Station
0 0 0 0 0 $0
SD-13002
Matadero Creek Storm
Water Pump Station and
Trunk Lines Improvements
0 0 315 1,840 1,915 $4,070
SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood
Storm Drain Improvements 143 860 0 0 0 $1,003
SD-06101
Storm Drain System
Replacement and Rehabili-
tation
572 590 607 626 644 $3,039
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 96
PE-86070Street Maintenance
STREET MAINTENANCE (PE-86070)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, T-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project will make reason-
able efforts to match existing pavement.
• Operating: This project will reduce street mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for annual resurfacing, slurry seal,
crack seal and reconstruction of various city streets recommended in
the City Auditor's report on street maintenance. The list of streets to be
included in this project will be prioritized and coordinated with Utilities
Department undergrounding projects.
Justification: The Pavement Maintenance Management System
(PMMS) has identified streets requiring maintenance. This program
systematically schedules the highest priority repairs. By providing a
systemized method of bi-annually rating streets for improvements and
a yearly maintenance program, the City addresses the need to provide
a functioning street system while reducing the maintenance backlog.
Supplemental Information: Staff is developing bid documents for the
second phase of San Antonio roadway and median reconstruction
(from Middlefield Road to the Highway 101 interchange) and has
applied for a HSIP grant for $900,000 which is subject to Caltrans
approval. In FY 2011, a BAO in the amount of $324,684 transferred
street funding to the Storm Drain project for curb and gutter work,
wheel chair ramps and driveway work along Channing Avenue. In May
2011 a BAO in the amount of $2,021,068 was approved by Council in
order to take advantage of a favorable bidding climate and to schedule
all construction work adjacent to schools to be completed prior to
opening. In FY 2012 appropriation for the annual Street Resurfacing
Capital Improvement Project will be reduced by an equal amount.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Construction Costs $1,357,883 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $16,172,423
Other
Total Budget Request $1,407,883 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $16,422,423
Revenues: $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $6,500,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Street Improvement
Fund($6,500,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201293
WS-07001Water Recycling Facilities
WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES (WS-07001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 35.93%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Project will require environmen-
tal review.
• Design Elements: Any above ground structures
will go through the appropriate review process.
• Operating: Project will increase utilities operating
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the
existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers in the City.
The pipeline will primarily access the Stanford Research Park and
provide an alternative supply source of 1,000 AFY (acre feet per year).
Justification: Palo Alto is aggressively pursuing all options to meet
future water supply needs. Recycled water provides a stable, drought-
proof supply of water that replaces the need to use Hetch Hetchy
potable supplies for irrigation purposes.
Consultant Services Scope: RMC Environmental is preparing the
environmental report and facility plan for the project.
Supplemental Information: The success of this project to proceed is
dependent on the ability of the Utilities Department to find funding
sources either in the form of a grant or other type of financing
arrangement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,100,122
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 395,241
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Construction Costs $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $500,000 $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $25,000,000
Revenues:$8,000,000 $8,000,000
Source of Funds:Water Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($8,000,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201291
SD-10101Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements
SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS (SD-10101)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC,
ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with the street resurfacing program
• Operating: This project may result in increased
operating costs for the Public Works and Commu-
nity Services Departments, depending upon the
drainage measures constructed.
• Telecommunications: There may be a need for
remote monitoring of a rainwater cistern integrated
into the Peers Park irrigation system.
Description: This project will improve drainage within the Southgate
neighborhood. The project will begin with a feasibility study of
innovative techniques, including permeable pavement, rain gardens,
or rainwater cisterns, to handle storm runoff from the neighborhood.
The study will also examine the feasibility of using harvested rainwater
for irrigation of Peers Park. Following the identification of feasible
alternatives, construction documents will be prepared.
Justification: The Southgate neighborhood bounded by Churchill
Ave., the Caltrain corridor, Park Blvd., and El Camino Real, drains to a
single drain inlet at the corner of Mariposa and Sequoia Avenues.
There are no underground storm drains to collect runoff from the
neighborhood. Staff and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee have
concluded that this neighborhood presents an opportunity to utilize
innovative techniques to improve drainage at a lower cost than
traditional pipeline solutions.
Consultant Services Scope: A consultant will conduct the feasibility
study and prepare bid documents for the feasible measures.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. This project has been reviewed with the Storm Drain
Oversight Committee, which has been a strong advocate of the
project. Due to high bid prices on prior Storm Drainage Fund CIPs, no
funding source has been identified for this project to-date. Staff and
the Storm Drain Oversight Committee concur that it is prudent to use a
portion of the annual allocation for innovative storm drain
improvements (which has been used to-date to fund a storm water
rebate program) towards the implementation of this project. A large
surplus has accumulated in the innovative storm drain account over
the past several years, and expenditure of those funds on this high-
priority CIP is justified.
92Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS (SD-10101) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $143,000 $143,000
Construction Costs $860,000 $860,000
Other
Total Budget Request $143,000 $860,000 $1,003,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
Appendix 4
This page is intentionally left blank.
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20122
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Revenues
Operating Revenue 7,599 11,231 1,137 39,479 3,108 1,608 9,789 73,951
Interest Income 179 353 0 274 438 142 40 1,427
Other Revenue 66 817 2 0 0 40 0 925
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $7,844 $12,400 $1,139 $39,754 $3,546 $1,791 $9,829 $76,303
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures 5,469 10,692 1,122 39,754 3,546 1,791 9,789 72,162
Capital Improvement Program 0 2,347 0 0 0 0 0 2,347
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $5,469 $13,039 $1,122 $39,754 $3,546 $1,791 $9,789 $74,509
NET TO/FROM UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $2,375 $(638) $17 $0 $0 $0 $40 $1,794
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 3
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Changes to Unrestricted assets
JUNE 30, 2011 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $5,260 $2,238 $(12) $200 $100 $100 $25,504 $33,390
FY 2012 Projected Changes 2,375 (638) 17 0 0 0 40 1,794
JUNE 30, 2012 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $7,635 $1,600 $5 $200 $100 $100 $25,544 $35,184
Appendix 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
Debt Service Funds
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
Debt Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Property Tax $0 $3,492 $3,492 $3,495 $4
Other - Interest 10 54 54 30 (24)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $10 $3,546 $3,546 $3,525 $(20)
General Fund Operating Transfers
Golf Course Corporation 449 528 528 527 0
Public Improvement Corp. (Civic Center) 333 328 328 58 (270)
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable 227 224 224 232 8
University Avenue Permit Fund Transfer 80 80 80 14 (66)
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $1,089 $1,160 $1,160 $831 $(329)
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $1,098 $4,706 $4,706 $4,357 $(349)
Expenses
Debt Service:
Golf Course Corporation - Principal 355 370 370 385 15
Golf Course Corporation - Interest 206 190 190 172 (17)
Public Improvement Corporation - Principal 380 390 390 405 15
Public Improvement Corporation - Interest 46 31 31 16 (15)
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Principal 105 110 110 115 5
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Interest 129 123 123 117 (6)
Library GO Bonds - Principal 0 0 0 765 765
Library GO Bonds - Interest 0 1,472 1,472 2,503 1,031
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $1,221 $2,686 $2,686 $4,478 $1,792
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $(122) $2,020 $2,020 $(122) $(2,141)
Appendix 6
This page is intentionally left blank.
5/25/2011
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 25, 2011
SUBJECT: Municipal Fee Schedule
Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing Meetings
Municipal Fee Schedule
A revised schedule of proposed changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule can be found in
Attachment A. Two changes have been made to Planning and Community Environment’s fees.
See page 16 of this memo for the detail of these changes.
The fees for Electric Vehicle Charge stations have been reduced based on the
Department’s updated analysis of staff time requirements.
A footnote is added to the User Permits - Wireless facilities fee to clarify that 100 percent
of all costs incurred will be recovered.
Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing Meetings
Attached you will find a summary of changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed
Budget. The first section describes Finance Committee recommended changes made to the
budget along with follow-up items as discussed at the Finance Committee budget hearings held
on May 3, 5, 12, 17, and 24. The second section describes staff-recommended changes to the
proposed budget document.
The items in this memorandum and additional changes made this evening will be incorporated
into the budget adoption staff report scheduled to be presented to the City Council on June 13,
2011.
1
5/25/2011
Adjustments to Date in the General Fund
This section summarizes actions taken by the Finance Committee to date. Detail for each
adjustment and follow-up information is provided later in the memo. A page is referenced where
additional information is discussed later in the memo.
Changes to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR)
The General Fund FY 2012 Proposed Budget includes the following changes totaling $0.3
million in contribution to the BSR. The changes are reflected in the table below:
Table 1: Changes to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget
(in thousands)
Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning - Change to BSR $131
5-May POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
12-May CSD Public Art Maintenance (15)
12-May PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
12-May PCE Return Development Center Tranistion funding 14
24-May FIR Return OES funding to BSR 167
24-May FIR Stanford revenue related to OES program 262
24-May PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring)34
Ending - Change to BSR $433
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved a net increase of 0.05 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) to the General Fund (add 1.5 FTE; drop 2.0 FTE; reallocate 0.55 FTE to the General
Fund). Details of these changes are the following:
1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II in Planning and Community Environment. The
department presented the Finance Committee with a plan on how to use its Development
Center Transition Plan funding. This position was reinstated, totaling $95,538 (salary and
benefits) and will be used in the Development Center. Funding for this position comes
from the Development Center Transition Plan and has does not impact the General Fund
BSR.
0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department. This is a temporary
reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this reduction in staff
has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction however, since this is a
temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the Table of Organization.
3
5/25/2011
The Public Works Department presented the Finance Committee with the department’s
reorganizational plan. Amendments to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget include:
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester ($30,692)
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $16,156
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957 (results in no net
impact to the General Fund)
Additional Information Requested by the Committee
Staff has been asked to provide additional information on the following items. This information
requested by the Finance Committee is included within the department summaries of the Finance
Committee Related Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget section of this memo.
A survey of Citywide resources used to track minutes of all boards, groups, councils, and
commissions, see p. 5
Information regarding the Train Depot lease, see p. 8
Actions Needed
This section summarizes the outstanding decision points that need to be addressed by the Finance
Committee. Additional information for each of these items can be found at the referenced page
number.
General Fund
o Tentative approval of the City Clerk’s Office FY 2012 Proposed Budget
o Foothill College Parking at Cubberley Community Center Term Pass revenue
decrease of $65,000 (not included in Table 1), see p. 12
o Civic Center Debt Service return to General Fund $0.3 million (not included in
Table 1), see p. 13
Debt Service Fund
o Civic Center Debt Service, see p. 13
Finance Committee Related Changes to the City Manager’s
Proposed Budget
The items listed below summarize motions made and/or action items made by the Finance
Committee that result in a fiscal change or other recommended change to the FY 2012 proposed
budget.
General Fund
City Attorney
4
5/25/2011
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Attorney’s budget (4-0)
City Auditor
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Auditor’s budget (4-0)
City Clerk
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee moved that City Staff return to the
committee with a cost analysis of minutes for the City’s Council, Committees,
Commissions, and Boards (4-0)
The Finance Committee requested information regarding the amount of City resources devoted
to the taking of minutes. Based on that request, information was solicited from City departments
regarding all current groups for which minutes are taken.
In Fiscal Year 2011, City resources were used to provide minutes to eighteen different boards,
groups, councils, and commissions. Minutes were also provided for specific projects undertaken
by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Of these, sixteen groups have sense minutes taken, one requires action minutes, and one has
verbatim minutes taken. Specific ARB and HRB projects going to Council also required
verbatim minutes.
The City Clerk’s office defines action minutes as minutes that include only the actual motions
taken at meetings. Verbatim minutes are defined as minutes that include everything everyone
said. Sense minutes are defined in the Municipal Code as minutes that include all actions taken
and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as
speak upon a particular matter under discussion.
Most minutes are prepared by City staff, but some are prepared by contractors. The Municipal
Code requires that City Council minutes are to be completed in sense form, but there are no other
regulations in the Municipal Code regarding minutes for other group meetings.
To determine staff costs for each group, the amount of time devoted to the preparation of
minutes was multiplied by the wage rate of the preparer. The all-employees average benefits
ratio was applied. A similar approach was adopted for calculating time for the review of
minutes. If preparation or review staff varied, depending upon the topic, average hourly wages
at the appropriate wage range were used in the calculation.
Contractor costs, which were provided in a cumulative amount and not broken out by group,
were averaged to arrive at a monthly figure.
This methodology resulted in an average monthly cost to the City of $16,207. The figure
represents: 178 hours of staff time per month for the preparation of minutes; 31 hours per month
5
5/25/2011
of staff time to review minutes; and average contractor costs for minute preparation. Copy and
supplies costs are not included in the analysis.
Projecting this figure across twelve months yields an annual estimate of $194,486 in City
resources dedicated to the preparation and review of minutes. Contractor costs make up 29
percent of the total.
For a summarized total of this study, please refer to Attachment B.
City Council
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Council budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended that no City funds be
used for the purchase and monthly cost of iPads (2-2)
City Manager
Motions: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Manager’s budget (4-0)
On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City
Manager’s Office (4-0)
Administrative Services Department
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Administrative Services Department budget (4-0)
Community Services Department
Motions: On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Community Services Department budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
add $15,000 for maintenance of public art (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval for
Human Service Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) administrative overhead
fees totaling $27,761 be funded by Council Contingency (2-1, 1 absent)
Fire Department
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Fire Department budget (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) budget, which includes adding 1.0 FTE OES
Director; ongoing costs totaling $498,325 and one-time costs totaling $335,000;
6
5/25/2011
and an increase in revenue from Stanford University of $252,497 in Fiscal Year
2012 (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
staff’s proposed OES Plan that utilizes the $1 million funding in the Non-
Departmental budget and tentatively approved the return of remaining OES
funding, totaling $166,675, to the BSR (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested that staff return to the
committee in September 2011 with an update of labor negotiations for
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and to postpone use of the one-
time OES related costs of $335,000 until staff returns with the labor negotiations
update (3-0, 1 abstained)
Human Resources
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Human Resources Department budget (4-0)
Library Department
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Library Department budget (4-0)
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
Motions: On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Planning and Community Environment Department budget (3-0,
1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
add $110,000 to the Planning and Community Environment Department budget
for the Rail Corridor project (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
staff’s plan to utilize $0.3 million in Development Center Transition Plan funding
which included (3-0, 1 absent):
Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II $95,538
Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE $28,231
Add contracted building and planning technicians $162,000
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
return the remaining balance of Development Center Transition Plan funding
totaling $14,231 to the BSR (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City
Manager’s Office (4-0)
7
5/25/2011
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to the Public Works Department $146,957
Police Department
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Police Department budget (4-0)
On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to add
$50,000 to the Police Department budget for the Animal Services Shelter study
(4-0)
Public Works Department
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Public Works General Fund budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Public Works General Fund budget that total an increase of
$113,015 in salary and benefits (4-0)
Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester ($30,692)
Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $16,156
Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957
Non-Departmental
Motion: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Non-Departmental Budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to conduct a separate
study session regarding the status of the Management/Professional Compensation
Study (4-0)
The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding the Train Depot rent. The
City pays $0.2 million in rent to Stanford University and payment is a direct pass through to the
Valley Transit Authority (VTA). The City entered into the Lease for the Depot and the bus
transit land area with Stanford in 1981. Simultaneously, the City entered into a sublease with the
VTA for the rehabilitation of the depot and the creation of the bus transit station. The VTA built
and created the bus transit center and used to operate the depot. The authority closed the depot
area and it sat vacant until a few years ago when the VTA, at the insistence of the City, entered
into the sub-sublease with the Café vendor. The initial lease term of the 1981 lease was for 32
years. In 2000 it was amended to provide the City the opportunity to terminate its lease with
Stanford, and assign its sublease w/the VTA to Stanford, on February 26, 2013, with 90 days
advance notice.
8
5/25/2011
Enterprise Funds
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved the reallocation of 0.55 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) Management Analyst from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund ($60,550).
Electric Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Electric Fund budget (4-0)
Fiber Optics Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Fiber Optics Fund budget (4-0)
Gas Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Gas Fund budget (4-0)
Wastewater Collection Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Wastewater Collection Fund budget (4-0)
Water Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Water Fund budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended to tentatively defer
funding for the Water Recycling Facilities project (WS-07001) from FY 2012 to
FY 2013 (4-0)
Refuse Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Refuse Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended an increase to contract
services for the SMaRT Station $250,000 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Refuse Fund budget that total a $99,000 decrease in salary and
benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.90 FTE Mgmt Analyst to other Public Works Funds
($99,000)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested that staff return to the
committee in July 2011 with ideas on a financially sustainable rate structure for
the Refuse Fund (4-0)
9
5/25/2011
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Motion: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Wastewater Treatment Fund (4-0)
Storm Drainage Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Storm Drainage Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended a decrease to untarped
load fee revenue ($12,000); a decrease in operating expense for innovative
projects ($143,000); and an increase CIP for the Southgate Neighborhood Storm
Drain Improvements (SD-10101) $143,000 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Storm Drainage Fund budget that total an $11,000 increase in
salary and benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.10 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $11,000
Internal Service Funds
Technology Fund
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Technology Fund operating budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended to tentatively remove the
Utilities Customer Bill Redesign project (TE-11004) funding totaling $150,000
from FY 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget and return
funding back to the respective Enterprise Funds. This follows a Finance
Committee discussion on April 19, 2011 regarding SAP-related Capital
Improvement Projects, wherein the Finance Committee recommended removal of
FY 2011 funding for TE-11004, and subsequently FY 2012 funding (4-0)
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Vehicle Replacement Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Vehicle Replacement Fund budget that total a $28,000 increase in
salary and benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst from the Refuse Fund $28,000
10
5/25/2011
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee with outsourcings or leasing options for the City’s vehicle fleet,
excluding Fire, Police, and specialty vehicles (4-0)
Print and Mailing Fund
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Print and Mailing Fund budget (4-0)
On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee within the next year with a plan to move customers towards paperless
billing (4-0)
General Benefits Fund
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Benefits Fund budget (4-0)
Workers’ Compensation Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Workers’ Compensation Fund budget (4-0)
General Liability Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Liability Fund budget (4-0)
Retiree Health Benefits Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Retiree Health Benefits Fund budget (4-0)
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Fund Capital Improvement Program budget, subject to
follow up items (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
moving funding for the Street Improvement Project (PE-86070) in the amount of
$2.0 million from FY 2012 to FY 2011 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee in September 2011 with a proposed process to address Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and an ongoing strategic CIP plan
(4-0)
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Budget
11
5/25/2011
Listed below is a summary of items presented to the Finance Committee at places that result in a
financial change.
General Fund
Community Services Department (CSD)
CSD proposed to reinstate 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department.
This is a temporary reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this
reduction in staff has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction however,
since this is a temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the Table of
Organization.
The department proposed that administrative fees total $27,761 for HSRAP be funded by the
Council Contingency fund. As an alternative to reducing HSRAP grants by 2.5 percent to cover
administrative fees, the Finance Committee recommends that the administrative fee be funded by
Council Contingency.
Staff proposes a reduction in revenue of $65,000 related to implementing a recommended
parking fee at Foothill College. This proposal was part of the City’s Strengthening the
Bottomline initiative in hopes of generating new revenue. The potential fee was to be collected
by Foothill College with revenues passed along to the City, rather than being included in the
Municipal Fee Schedule. Discussions with Foothill College have focused on bigger, long-term
site issues, so implementation of this fee did not materialize and the revenues should be removed
from the FY 2012 proposed budget.
Economic Development Division
Staff proposed that the Economic Development Division be moved from the Planning and
Community Environment Department to the City Manager’s Office. Moving this division
enhances the city’s focus on economic development by facilitating a more comprehensive plan
for this function across all departments. The budget for this division totals $246,754 and includes
1.05 FTE. Since the division is moving between General Fund departments, there is no net
impact to the General Fund BSR.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
The PCE FY 2012 Proposed Budget included $300,000 in funding for the transition of the
Development Center. The department presented its intended use of this funding during the fiscal
year which included the following:
Development Center Transition Plan
$300,000
1. Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE
(28,231)
2. Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II (salary $61,797;
benefits $33,741)
(95,538)
3. Add contracted Building Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
4. Add contracting Planning Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
12
5/25/2011
Remaining Funding for Development Center Reorganization $14,231
The remaining $14,231 in Development Center Transition Plan funding will be returned to the
BSR as surplus.
PCE requested $110,000 in funding for the Rail Corridor Study. In response to proposed
improvements along the fixed rail service tracks in Palo Alto, the intent of this study is to
generate a community vision of land use, transportation, and urban design elements along the
CalTrain corridor.
Police Department
The department intends to perform a thorough review of its Animal Services Shelter operations
to identify possible efficiencies, cost reductions, and revenue enhancements. The study will also
review the City’s relationship with its current partners and the possible outsourcing of animal
control services. An evaluation of the present facility and possible relocation of the shelter will
also be conducted. The cost of this study is $50,000 and will be conducted by an outside
consultant.
Public Works Department
The department reviewed its organizational structure in light of numerous vacancies. By
reducing six divisions to three divisions and combining workgroups, the department will gain
efficiencies in streamlined workflow, program/project oversight and coordination. As a result of
the department’s new structure, staff is recommending the following amendments to the
Proposed Budget:
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $30,692 to drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist,
and add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $16,156 expense to reclassify 0.8 FTE
Supervisor, Facilities Management to Manager, Maintenance Operations
Decrease salaries and benefits expense by $141,340 expense to eliminate 1.0 FTE Project
Manager
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $60,550 expense to reallocate 0.55 FTE
Management Analyst from the Refuse Fund
Move 1.0 FTE Arborist from the Planning Department to the Public Works Department
(no net impact to the General Fund)
Non-Departmental
The final debt service payment for the 2002A Civic Center Refinancing Certifications of
Participation (COPs) is scheduled for March 2012. The Civic Center Debt Service Fund receives
contributions from the General Fund, $341,200, and from the Parking District, $80,000, for the
bond’s annual debt service payment. The Civic Center Debt Service Fund currently has $349,064
in reserves for the bond’s final debt service payment and needs only $58,435 from the General
Fund and $13,701 from the Parking District to pay the final debt service. This results in a return
of $282,765 to the General Fund and $66,299 to the Parking District.
13
5/25/2011
Enterprise Funds
Storm Drainage Fund
A decrease of $12,000 in untarped load fee revenue is proposed. This fee will no longer be
applicable due to the landfill closure in FY 2012.
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to increase
salaries and benefits expense by $11,009 to reallocate 0.1 FTE Management Analyst from the
Refuse Fund.
A decrease of $143,000 in operating expense for innovative projects is proposed. This funding
will be transferred to CIP SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements.
Previously, this CIP did not contain funding. The project will begin with a feasibility study of
innovative techniques, including permeable pavement, rain gardens, or rainwater cisterns, to
handle storm runoff from the neighborhood. The study will also examine the feasibility of using
harvested rainwater for irrigation of Peers Park. Following the identification of feasible
alternatives, construction documents will be prepared.
Refuse Fund
An increase of $250,000 in contract services is proposed for the SMaRT Station contract. This
increase more accurately reflects the expected expense to be incurred in FY 2012.
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to decrease
salaries and benefits expense by $99,082 to reallocate 0.9 FTE Management Analyst to the
General Fund, Storm Drainage Fund, and Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund.
Internal Service Funds
Technology Fund
At a Finance Committee meeting on April 19, 2011, the Finance Committee discussed SAP-
related Capital Improvement Projects, and recommended removing FY 2011 funding for TE-
11004 Utilities Customer Bill Redesign, as well as the $150,000 funding proposed for FY 2012.
The funds will be returned to the respective Enterprise Funds.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to increase
salaries and benefits expense by $27,523 to reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from the
Refuse Fund.
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Street Improvement (PE-86070) – transfer $2.0M from FY 2012 to FY 2011. At a meeting on
May 16, 2011 Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring $2.0 million from
the Infrastructure Reserve into project PE-86070 Street Maintenance for FY 2011, and thereby
reducing the requested FY 2012 funding for the project by $2.0 million. This would allow the
14
5/25/2011
City to take advantage of current low resurfacing bids and ensure that additional street
resurfacing could occur during the summer while school is not in session.
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor (PL-11002) – options for potential project changes will
be presented to CC in Fall 2011 Staff discussed project PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub
Corridor, and the Finance Committee asked about potential widening of the sidewalks on
California Avenue as part of this project. Staff will return to the Finance Committee in Fall 2011
with options for potential streetscape enhancements and additional funding requests if necessary.
Related Memos Distributed “At Places”
May 12, 2011
Amendments to the May 12 Department Hearings
o CSD – add 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I to Table of Organization
o PCE – move Economic Development Division to the City Manager’s Office
o PCE – Development Center Transition Plan
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o FIR – listing and associated cost with studies in the Fire Department
o POL – detail of allocated charges
o IT – compensation level for the Director of Information Technology/Chief
Information Officer
May 17, 2011
Additional Information Pertaining to May 17 Department Hearings
o NON – detail of the General Fund Non-Departmental budget
o COU – salaries and benefits cost for the City Council budget; information
regarding iPads
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o CSD – use of reclaimed waster at the Golf Course
May 24, 2011
Additional Information Pertaining to the May 24 Department Hearings
o Information regarding the 2005 Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure
o NON – detail of the General Fund Non-Departmental budget
o COU – salaries and benefits cost for the City Council budget; information
regarding iPads
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o ASD administrative revenue increase
o Additional information from CalPERS regarding actions taken by other public
agencies
o Responses to questions raised regarding various capital projects
15
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Registrations 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Junior Museum and Zoo Group Admission (for organized groups of 15
to 25, larger groups shall be subdivided with additional group
admission fee)
Fee:$50.00 - $100.00
Non-resident:Fee plus up to 50%
Fee:$50.00-$125.00
Non-resident: Fee plus up to
50%
$607,384.00 $25,000.00 4%
Tours
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood School
Districts, $3.00/student Non-
Resident: $75.00/group
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood
School Districts, $3.00-
$4.50/student Non-Resident:
$528,574.00 $27,500.00 5%
Infant (age 2 and under)
none Fee:$0.00 - $2.00
Non-Resident: $0.00-$3.00
$551,212.00 $448,140.00 81%
Youth (17 and under)
Fee $20.00-$27.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
Fee $25.00-$35.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
see above see above see above
Organic Garden Plots $.40/square feet/year $.50/square feet/year $110,779.00 $26,290.00 24%
Lucie Stern Community Center
Ballroom (Room S) Fee: $114.00/hour
Non-Resident: $171.00/hr
Fee: $132.00/hour
Non-Resident: $198.00/hr
$258,727.00 $110,000.00 43%
Community Room (Room R) Fee: $78.00/hour
Non-Resident: $117.00/hr
Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room (Room D) Fee: $66.00/hour
Non-Resident: $99.00/hr
Fee: $76.00/hour
Non-Resident: $114.00/hr
see above see above see above
Kitchen Fee: $24.00/hour
Non-Resident: $36.00/hr
Fee: $28.00/hour
Non-Resident: $42.00/hr
see above see above see above
Patio Fee: $70.00/hour
Non-Resident: $105.00/hr
Fee: $80.00/hour
Non-Resident: $120.00/hr
see above see above see above
Exclusive Use Package - 5 hour minimum, includes facility attendant Fee: $1,130.00/ for 5 hours; $226.00
for each additional hour
Non-Resident:$1,695.00/ for 5 hours;
$339.00 for each additional hour
Fee: $260.00/hr
Non-Resident:$390.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room and Patio Package Fee: $86.00/hour
Non-Resident: $129.00
Fee: $100.00/hr
Non-Resident:$150.00/hr
see above see above see above
Community Room and Patio Package Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00
Fee: $110.00/hr
Non-Resident:$165.00/hr
see above see above see above
2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Theatre Performance
Standard 2 hour fee
Non-profit: $270.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $185.00/hr
Basic rate: $430.00/hr
delete
Each additional hour
Non-profit: $85.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $65.00/hr
Basic rate: $120.00/hr
delete
Theater Rehearsal Dressing Rooms
Standard 1 hour fee $40.00 delete
Each additional hour $40.00 delete
Theatre building rate
Non-profit: $45.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $36.00/hr
Basic rate: $60.00/hr
delete
Dressing Room, M-3 (6)
$17.00/hr Non-profit:$17.00/hr
Basic Rate:$20.00/hr
$214,032.00*$200,000.00 93%
Dressing Room, M-2 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
Dressing Room, M-4 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
2 hour production fee $150.00 delete
Each additional hour $75.00 delete
Attachment A (REVISED)
Open Space and Parks
Package Rentals
Facility: Lucie Stern Community Center
Rentals and Reservations
Cubberley Community Center: Facility Rental
Meeting/Activity Rooms
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Arts and Science
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Resident Coupon Book-10 tickets (available to Palo Alto Residents only)*
Facility Admissions - Community Garden
Recreation Actiivities
Swimming Pools - Rinconada Complex and PAUSD pools when operated by the City - Ages 2 & under -- Free
1) Resident, n Non-profit music/dance/theatre groups, in-residence at Cubberley, may receive a 25% discount on room rental fees when used for weekly rehearsals.
Cubberley Community Theatre
Production Fee
Summary Page 1 of 4 City of Palo Alto 16
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Performance Day Package (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $840.00
Basic rate: $1,200.00
see above see above
Additional Performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $210.00
Basic rate: $300.00
see above see above
Additional performance hours past four per performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Additional performance hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $56.00
Basic rate: $80.00/hr
see above see above
Performance Day Package (3) (7) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $700.00
Basic rate: $1,000.00
see above see above
Additional Production hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $105.00
Basic rate: $150.00/hr
see above see above
Rehearsal day Package (3) (8) (9) (11)
none Non-profit: $525.00
Basic rate: $750.00
see above see above
Additional rehearsal hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- resident none $34.00/hr (1)$850.00 (1)
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- non-resident none $51.00hr.(1)$650.00 (1)
Inter-Library Loan delete
Inter-Library Out of State Loan delete
Building Permit Fees 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
$1,000,000.01 and up $8,964.92 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $5.83 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds $10,000,000.00
an alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangement may be made at
the discretion of the Chief Building
Official .
$8,964.92 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $5.83 for
each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds
$5,000,000.00 an alternative fee
arrangement may be established
by the Chief Building Official
to achieve full cost recovery.
title change title change
Electric vehicle charge station
Residential (All types)none $315.00 $160..00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 1 &2)none $975.00 plus $100 for each
additional station $370.00 plus
$92.50 for each additional
station
$6,660.00 $6,660.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 3 &4) none $1,450 plus $150.00 for each
additional station $560.00 plus
$140.00 for each additional
station
$5,040.00 $5,040.00 100%
Residential Installations System $200.00 each $320.00 $7,680 $7,680 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW)$10.00 for each photovoltaic panel $565.00 $1,130 $1,130 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW - 49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $1,890.00 $7,560 $7,560 100%
Commercial installations System (>49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $3,775.00 $7,550 $7,550 100%
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
7- Production is defined as videography of onstage activity without a live audience, or similar usage
8 - A 20% discount is given for bookings on off-peak days Monday through Thursday
* Does not reflect annual lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District for use of facility and covenant to not develop - approximately $7 million payment in FY 2012
6 - M-2, M-3 and M4 dressing room fees are assessed only when used as dressing rooms for theatre rentals
5- Performance defined as activity onstage with a live audience present. Performance packages include one performance block up to 4 hours time.
4 - Rental groups may use volunteers in unshering positions subject to approval by the theatre manager and compliance with all rules and procedures
3 -Fee package includes event Supervisor, the M-11 drsesing room and all dedicated theatre equipment. Additional technical staff may be required.
Theatre Packages
Plumbing Permits
Photovoltaic systems
Photovoltaic Installations Systems (Does not include plan check fee)
Electrical Permits
9- 20% discount for half-day rentals,(6 or less hours either concluding before 2 pm or startting after 4 pm) or rentals of 6 hours or less book booked before or after an existing rental on the same day
11- All other building use falls under this category, including rehearsals, load-in and restore days
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
1 - Department used cost per square foot for a similar room in Lucie Stern Community Center and applied 50% discount for non-profits
Summary Page 2 of 4 City of Palo Alto 17
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Graywater Systems
Clotheswasher System none $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 100%
Simple System none $55.00 plus plan review at cost
$405.00 $405.00 100%
Complex System none $85.00 plus plan review at cost
$765.00 $765.00 100%
Permit and Application Extension Extension of Building Permit or
Building Permit Application
$50.00 $50.00 title change
Application Reactivations of Expired Building Permit Application $150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
$150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (for Final Inspection
Only)
$335.00 $335.00 or original Building
Permit fee, whichever is less
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (All Others)$335.00 or building permit fee 50% of original Building Permit
Fee not to exceed the full cost
to perform remaining
inspections as determined by
the Chief Building Official.
$2,500 $2,500 100%
Residential:
A. Single Family and Two Family New constructions plus additions >
1.250 sf1, and rebuilds
City Verification Review: $604.00
Outside Verification Review: $160.00
City Verification Review: $604
Outside Verification Review:
$160.00
title change
B. Single Family and Two Family, existing home additions or rebuilds >
1,250 sf1
City Verification Review: $544.00
Outside Verification Review: 100.00
Delete
C. B. Single Family and Two Family, Any existing home renovations,
rebuilds and/or additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and/or >
$100,000 valuation.
City Verification Review: $50.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$50.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
D. C.. Multi-Family New Construction of 3 or More (attached) Units1 City Verification Review: $1,062.00
(1-10 units), $1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units) Outside
Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 (1-10 units),
$1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units)
Outside Verification Review:
$618.00
title change
E. D. Multi-Family renovations or alterations > 50% of the existing unit
sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the
following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system1
City Verification Review: $1,062.00
Outside Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 Outside Verification
Review: $618.00
title change
F. Multi-Family Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual
units > 250 sf and valuation > $100,000 in a single unit1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review:n/a
Delete
Non-Residential:
A. New construction > 1,000 sf (including additions to existing
buildings and rebuilds)
City Verification Review: $1334.00
Outside Verification Review:$800.00
City Verification Review:
$1334.00 Outside Verification
Review:$800.00
title change
B. New Construction > 500 sf and < 5,000 sf (including additions to
existing buildings)
City Verification Review: $1,044.00
Outside Verification Review: $600.00
Delete
C. B. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $871.00
Outside Verification Review:427.00
City Verification Review:
$871.00 Outside Verification
Review:427.00
title change
C. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$327.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
Documents 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Zoning interpretation, or other zoning letter Administrative extensions
and zoning letters
$150.00/hour; 1 hr min. $150.00/hour; 1 hr min. title change
Development Impact Fees
Parks Residential: Single family1
$9,971/residence (or
$14,890/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $6,527/unit
(or $3,300/unit smaller than or equal
to 900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,234 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $1,915 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$10,360/residence (or
$15,471/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,782/unit (or $3,429/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,399
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel $1,990 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$15,468.00 $15,468.00 100%
General and Miscellaneous Fees
1 Plus, if applicable, Construction & Demolition Ordinance Fee in the Refuse Fund under Special Fees on page 21-4.
Green Building Program Fees
Summary Page 3 of 4 City of Palo Alto 18
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Community Centers Residential: Single family1
$2,585/residence (or
$3,870/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $1,700/unit
(or $858/unit smaller than or equal to
900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $239 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $108 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$2,686/residence (or
$4,021/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$1,766/unit (or $891/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $248
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof
$7,424.00 $7,424.00 100%
Libraries Residential: Single family1
$902/residence (or $1,344/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi‐
family $539/unit (or $296/unit
smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $228 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $96 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$937/residence (or
$1,396/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi‐family
$560/unit (or $308/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $237
per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel,
$100 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
$2,451.00 $2,451.00 100%
Use Permits - Wireless Facilities (1)Initial Deposit of $3500 plus
legal fees and other Application
Fees
$35,000 $35,000 100%
Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100%
Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $150.00 $150.00 100%
Transportation Fees
Residential Parking Permit Program
1. 100% of processing costs will be recovered plus Environmental Impact Assessments and other entitlements necessary to complete the project.
Summary Page 4 of 4 City of Palo Alto 19
ATTACHMENT B
Meeting Office Responsible for Minutes Type of Minutes
Prep
Staff
Time
(hours/
month)
Review
staff
time
(hours/
month)
Approx.
Monthly
Costs***
(labor &
benefits)
Architecture Review Board Planning and Community Environment Sense 5 1.5 462.87$
Citizens’ Oversight Committee for
Expenditure of Library Bond Funds Public Works Sense 1.34 0 109.75$
City Council City Clerk Sense 80 16 5,229.96$
City/School Liaison City Manager Sense 8* 1* 604.51*
Finance Committee City Clerk Sense 24 4 1,406.64$
Historic Resources Board Planning and Community Environment Sense 2.5 0.5 184.66$
Human Relations Commission Community Services Sense 2 0.25 123.12$
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission Public Works Action 0.5 0.17 45.33$
Library Advisory Commission Library Sense 5 0.25 284.48$
Library Bond Stakeholders’
Meeting Library Sense 1 By LBOC 91.67$
Parks and Recreation Commission Community Services Sense 2.5 1 201.18$
Planning and Transportation
Commission Planning and Community Environment Verbatim C 0.5 25.90$
Policy and Services Commission City Clerk Sense 18 4 1,104.02$
Public Art Commission Community Services Sense 7.5 0.5 434.41$
Rail Committee City Clerk Sense 16 0 905.07$
Rail Corridor Task Force Planning and Community Environment Sense C0 C
Storm Drain Oversight Public Works Sense 0.67** 0.33** 73.92**
Utilities Advisory Commission Utilities Sense 3.75 0.5 268.27$
Specific ARB/HRB projects to
Council Planning and Community Environment Verbatim C 0.5 34.38$
PCE Average Monthly Contractor
Costs 4,617.00$
TOTALS 177.76 31 16,207.14$
* City and School District rotate minute-taking responsibity. Figure assumes a City responsible year.
** Only two meetings per year. Preparation time approximately 8 hours per year.
Group Minutes: 1 Action, 16 Sense, 1 Verbatim
C - Contractor prepares minutes. Average contractor costs added before total.
*** FY2011 All Groups Variable and Fixed Benefits Ratio of 62.7% included.
20
Appendix 7
This page is intentionally left blank.
5/12/2011 1
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 12, 2011
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget
Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining
to the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Amendments to May 12 Department Hearings
Community Services Department
The proposed budget contains a reduction of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) Program
Assistant I. The proposed reduction reduces two Program Assistant I positions from 0.75
FTE to 0.50 FTE in the Art Center. Since the Art Center is limiting service due to
renovations, this reduction in FTE is temporary and although staff has made a one-time
reduction in funding totaling $48,460, the FTE count on pages 98, 104, 111 need to be
revised to include the 0.5 FTE. See Attachment 1.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
Attachment 2 to this memo provides revisions to pages 158, 163, 164, and 170 of the
PCE proposed budget. The committee tentatively approved the operating budget for the
City Manager’s Office in the May 3rd Finance Committee hearing. This tentative approval
included a proposal to move the Economic Development Division from PCE to City
Manager’s Office. This change is reflected on pages 160 and 163 of Attachment 2.
As the proposed budget was being developed, the PCE was structuring its plans to
reorganize the Development Center. Staff has included $0.3 million in the proposed
budget to initiate these plans. Since the printing of the proposed budget; staff has
determined the following needs to deliver improved service in the Development Center
while plans are being finalized. These items are funded by the $0.3 million and result in
FTE changes. See Attachment 2 for revised department pages.
5/12/2011 2
Development Center Transition Plan
$300,000
1. Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE (Attachment 2, p. 160)
(28,231)
2. Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II (salary $61,797;
benefits $33,741) (Attachment 2, p. 160)
(95,538)
3. Add contracted Building Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
4. Add contracting Planning Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
Remaining Funding for Development Center Reorganization $14,231
On February 14, 2011, Council approved a contract with BMS Design Group to prepare
the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. The scope of work was approved summer 2010 and
$0.1 million was budgeted in FY 2011. The department requires an additional $0.1 million
in FY 2012. See Attachment 2 for revised department pages.
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
Staff is also providing the Finance Committee with follow up items from the May 5th
Budget Hearing meeting. These items are informational and no action is required.
Fire Department
During discussion of the Fire Department budget, the Finance Committee requested a
listing of cost associated with the studies conducted by the Fire Department. Below is a
listing of these studies and associated cost.
EMS Study (PSRG) $50,000
Fire Management and EMS Study (Tri-Data) 80,400
OES Study (Chakos) 22,500
Total $152,900
Police Department
The Committee requested additional information discussing the change in Allocated
Charges for the Police Department. See Attachment 3.
The Police Department charges the Utilities Department and Stanford University for
Communications services. Nine percent of the total number of calls dispatched are Fire
related however, the Police Department does not charge the Fire Department for these
calls for these services. Stanford University reimburses the City for 30.3 percent of the
Fire Department’s budget and 16 percent of the Police Communications budget. If the
Police Department were to charge the Fire Department for service calls, the City would be
double-charging the University.
Technology Fund
The Administrative Service Department is reorganizing its operations to focus more on
city finances and the Technology Division will become its own department.
Correspondingly, staff proposes a title change from Chief Information Officer to Director
98 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
1.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
Greg Betts
RECREATION AND CUBBERLEY
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Recreation & Golf
0.75-Admin Associate III
RECREATION
2.0-Supervisor, Recreation Programs
4.0-Coordinator, Recreation Programs
1.0-Building Service Person
1.75-Program Assistant I
CUBBERLEY CENTER
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Program Manager
2.0-Program Assistant I
2.0-Building Serviceperson-Lead
1.0-Building Serviceperson
1.0-Program Assistant II
0.75- Prod Arts/Science Program
FY 2012 Position Totals:75.00 Full-time
48.71 Hourly
ARTS & SCIENCES
ADMINISTRATION
1.0- Division Mgr, Arts & Sciences
ART CENTER
1.0- Manager, Arts
4.25-Producer Arts
1.75-Program Assistant I
1.0- Program Assistant II
0.5-Volunteer Coordinator
CHILDREN’S & COMMUNITY
THEATRE
1.0- Manager, Arts
1.0-Theatre Specialist
1.0-Program Assistant I
3.0-Producer Arts
YOUTH SCIENCES & INTERPRETIVE
1.0- Community Services Senior
Program
4.0- Producer Arts/Science Program
1.0-Program Assistant I
2.25 - JMZ Educator
OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Open Space & Parks
1.0-Program Assistant II
OPEN SPACE
2.0-Supervisor, Open Space
5.0-Park Ranger
PARKS
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Park Superintendent
CITY PARKS & FACILITIES
2.0-Inspector, Field Services
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
1.0-Parks Maintenance Person
ATHLETIC FIELD
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1.0-Supervisor, Parks
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
5.0-Park Maintenance Person
1.0-Park Maintenance Lead
CAPITAL PROJECTS
1.0 - Program Assistant 1
GOLF
1.0-Community Services Superintendent
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrative Assistant
1.0-Senior Management Analyst
HUMAN SERVICES
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Recreation Program
1.0-Management Assistant
ATTACHMENT 1
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
103
• Community Services staff continues to work closely with youth leadership groups such as the Teen Arts
Council, Youth Council, Teen Advisory Board, and Junior Advisory Board, along with the Palo Alto
Recreation Foundation and volunteers, to help shape programs and services to meet current and future
community needs.
Environmental Sustainability
• The Art Center, working with the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, included “green” building
considerations in their renovation plans to expand the Art Center which is being constructed in 2011 and
2012.
• The Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division continues to actively support partnerships with a variety of
environmental organizations, recreation clubs, sports groups, Acterra, Save The Bay, and Friends of the
Palo Alto Parks in order to provide special interest classes, augment City services, and enhance facilities
and programs offered to the public. Parks staff works with neighborhood associations to “adopt-a-park”
and encourage volunteers to plant colorful flower beds in their local parks. The division also continues to
further limit the use of pesticides in parks. Staff works closely with neighbors and interested parties in the
design of infrastructure improvements.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 1,100,249 1,392,082 1,387,546 1,467,671 80,125
Arts and Sciences 4,606,451 4,255,481 4,345,740 4,401,769 56,029
Cubberley and Human Services 3,110,339 2,822,547 2,838,878 2,903,602 64,724
Open Space and Parks 5,839,351 5,997,186 6,001,092 6,293,806 292,714
Recreation and Golf 5,840,939 5,571,403 5,581,163 5,636,404 55,241
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252 $548,833
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257 $(112,583)
INTERNAL REVENUES 120,373 99,600 51,659 51,659 0
EXTERNAL REVENUES 7,130,554 7,413,098 7,478,181 7,365,598 (112,583)
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012104
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 11,510,905 9,879,245 9,951,376 10,576,066
Contract Services 2,980,908 3,718,204 3,762,596 3,979,427
Supplies and Materials 614,137 789,140 803,140 699,232
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 46,420 78,700 78,700 72,700
General Expense 1,268,839 1,376,774 1,373,016 1,386,556
Rents and Leases 16,759 23,766 23,816 24,466
Allocated Charges 4,052,371 4,165,880 4,154,785 3,957,815
Operating Transfers Out 6,990 6,990 6,990 6,990
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257
Total Full Time Positions 94.25 74.50 74.50 74.00
Total Temporary Positions 52.14 49.32 49.32 48.71
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of Community Services classes and camps taught (SEA)1,072 1,018 967
2. Number of classes and camps sessions cancelled 390 371 352
16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000 19,500 20,000
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Enrollment in Community Services Classes (By Fiscal Year)
ATTACHMENT 1
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
111
ARTS AND SCIENCES
To instill passion for the arts and sciences in all its forms.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,426,334 3,194,652 3,225,020 3,287,351
Contract Services 570,390 460,319 517,587 495,069
Supplies and Materials 205,782 255,631 254,631 255,631
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 39,178 37,221 37,221 37,221
General Expense 10,385 82,337 85,910 82,587
Rents and Leases 7,264 11,666 11,716 11,666
Allocated Charges 347,118 213,655 213,655 232,244
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,606,451 $4,255,481 $4,345,740 $4,401,769
TOTAL REVENUES $1,436,883 $1,778,218 $1,838,063 $1,778,218
Total Full Time Positions 25.00 23.75 23.75 23.75
Total Temporary Positions 14.49 12.98 12.98 13.16
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of exhibitions at Art Center 332
2. Number of Children's Theatre class, camp, and workshop registrants (SEA)1,436 1,400 1,400
Efficiency:
1. Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days (SEA)8,618 7,500 5,300
2. Youth participants in theatre performances and programs (SEA)555 600 650
Effectiveness:
1. Total Art Center attendance (SEA)- The Art Center is “On the Road” in FY
2012 due to the facility's renovation.60,375 62,822 42,600
2. Attendance at youth theatre performances (SEA)24,983 21,000 21,000
ATTACHMENT 1
1.0-PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR
Curtis Williams
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Admin Associate III
0.5 Admin Assocaite II
1.0-Planning Arborist
CURRENT PLANNING
1.0-Planning Mgr
1.0-Admin Associate II
2.0-Senior Planner
3.0-Planner
1.0 Planner (Sustainability Coordinator)
1.0-Associate Planner
ADVANCE PLANNING
1.0-Planning Manager
2.0-Admin Associate II
1.0 Senior Planner (Housing)
2.0-Senior Planner
1.0-Planner (CDBG)
1.0-Planner (Historic)
1.0 Planner
TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Chief Transportation Official
1.0-Transportation Engineer
1.0-Associate Transportation Engineer
1.0-Engineering Technician II
0.5-Commute Coordinator
1.0-Project Engineer
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrator
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds:
46.00 Full-time
2.88 Hourly
BUILDING
1.0-Chief Building Official
2.0-Code Enforcement Officer
1.0 Admin Associate II
PLAN CHECK/COUNTER SERVICES
1.0-Asst Building Official
2.0-Plan Check Engineer
2.0-Building Technician
1.0-Admin Associate I
INSPECTION SERVICES
1.0-Inspection Services Supervisor
1.0-Building Inspector Specialist
4.0-Building Inspector
Planning and Community Environment Department
Organizational Chart
160 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENT 2
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
163
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 584,752 946,334 1,118,452 957,479 (160,973)
Planning and Transportation 5,477,573 5,063,790 5,255,741 5,308,282 52,541
Building 2,915,890 3,080,861 3,396,519 3,909,930 513,411
Economic Development 432,120 236,994 216,996 0 (216,996)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,175,691 $187,983
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191 $737,238
INTERNAL REVENUES 327,102 128,000 271,557 128,000 (143,557)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 5,128,748 4,899,364 5,805,396 6,686,191 880,795
Number of Building Permits Issued
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Palo Alto San Mateo Sunnyvale Milpitas Mountain
View
2008-09
2009-10
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012164
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 6,451,390 6,578,489 6,762,443 6,807,958
Contract Services 1,413,436 1,221,561 1,650,755 1,694,630
Supplies and Materials 25,643 31,165 60,165 35,882
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 8,882 11,300 11,300 10,650
General Expense 356,546 398,859 441,769 499,763
Rents and Leases 301,799 299,222 279,222 317,650
Allocated Charges 791,893 779,776 774,447 802,548
Operating Transfers Out 60,746 7,607 7,607 7,607
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,175,691
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191
Total Full Time Positions 48.85 44.60 44.60 44.10
Total Temporary Positions 1.63 2.37 2.37 2.88
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of building permits issued (SEA)2,847 3,365 3,350
2. Number of building inspections completed (SEA)15,194 16,825 18,500
3. Number of planning applications completed (SEA)241 269 282
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed 828 705 710
5. Number of new code enforcement cases (SEA)680 650 700
6. Number of Palo Alto Shuttle boardings (SEA)137,825 110,185 110,685
7. Average number of City employees participating in the City commute
program each month (SEA)113 100 115
Efficiency:
1. Number of building permits issued (per plan checker/building technician
FTE)527 623 620
2. Number of building inspections (per inspector FTE)2,171 2,404 2,643
3. Number of planning applications completed (per current planner FTE)40 45 47
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed (per current planner FTE)138 117 118
5. Number of code enforcement cases (per code enforcement officer FTE)340 325 350
6. City's cost per Palo Alto Shuttle rider (SEA)$2.65 $1.97 $1.86
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of building inspection requests for permitted work responded to
within one day - target is 90% (SEA)99% 98%98%
2. Average number of weeks to complete planning staff-level applications
(represents 98% of total volume) (SEA)13.7 weeks 13.2 weeks 13.2 weeks
3. Percent of zoning plan checks completed within 4 week target 90% 82%82%
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 3
Police Department - Allocated Charges Detail
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
FY 2010 FY 2011 % Change FY 2012 % Change % Change
Account Name Actual Adjusted From 2010 Proposed From 2011 From 2010
Desktop Replacement $43,215 $73,758 70.7% $79,713 8.1% 84.5%
Desktop Maintenance 26,434 44,000 66.5% 47,553 8.1% 79.9%
IT Infrastructure - Replace 37,693 47,744 26.7% 51,599 8.1% 36.9%
IT Infrastructure - Maintain 24,156 28,200 16.7% 30,477 8.1% 26.2%
IT Support 998,178 1,255,882 25.8% 1,357,285 8.1% 36.0%
Telecommunications 0 105,402 113,912 8.1%
Application - Replacement 122,514 0 -100.0% 0 -100.0%
Applications -Maintenance 196,098 293,104 49.5% 316,770 8.1% 61.5%
Total IT charges $1,448,288 $1,848,090 27.6%$1,997,309 8.1% 37.9%
Vehicle/Equip Maintenance 475,070 653,480 37.6% 653,480 0.0% 37.6%
Vehicle Replacement Alloc. 340,250 319,777 -6.0% 310,059 -3.0% -8.9%
Total Vehicle/Equip. $815,320 $973,257 19.4%$963,539 -1.0% 18.2%
Utilities Charges 39,001 30,155 -22.7% 38,067 26.2% -2.4%
Mail Charges 20,446 20,563 0.6% 20,563 0.0% 0.6%
Printing Charges 87,191 64,702 -25.8% 64,702 0.0% -25.8%
Liability Insurance (172,802)232,078 234.0% 235,631 1.5% -236.4%
Total - Other ($26,164)$347,498 596.0%$358,963 3.3% 601.6%
TOTAL ALLOCATED
CHARGES $2,237,444 $3,168,845 41.6%$3,319,811 4.8%48.4%
5/26/2011 1
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 17, 2011
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Additional Information Pertaining to May 17 Department Hearings
Non-Department Budget
Attached for your review is the detail for the General Fund Non-Department Budget
(Attachment 1).
City Council
Staff was requested to calculate the actual cost of Council Salaries and Benefits. The revised
Salaries and Benefits budget for the City Council budget is presented in the below table. This
replaces the Salaries and Benefits line of the Inputs table on page 69 of the proposed budget. The
proposed increase in the Council budget is $123,917 and staff recommends offsetting the
increase with Non-Departmental budget.
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
FY 2010 Adopted Adjusted Proposed Amended
Actuals Budget Budget Budget Budget Change
Salaries and Benefits $193,155 $71,145 $72,309 $94,263 $218,180 $123,917
Salaries $64,800 $64,800
Medicare 940 940
Medical, dental, vision 28,523 107,848
Retiree medical ARC - 44,592
$94,263 $218,180
Council requested information regarding the cost of purchasing iPads to view Council packets
and any other communications from city staff. Potentially, the one-time equipment cost for nine
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Palo Alto
Non-Departmental Summary
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
Adopted Adjusted Proposed Change
Cubberley - Covernant not to Develop $6,878 $6,878 $7,061 $183
Public Safety Consessions - - (4,289) (4,289)
Attrition Savings (1,500) (1,500) (1,000) 500
Retiree Medical ARC 1,097 1,097
Anticipated Pension Increase - - 1,000 1,000
Management Comp Study 310 310 310 -
FCA VMC 21 21 21 -
Subtotal - Salaries & Benefits (1,169) (1,169) (2,861) (1,692)
Funding for OES Program 1,000 1,000
Rent - Land 156 156 156 -
Vehicle Replacement (483) (483) 483
Other Contract Services (118) (118) 118
Property Taxes 81 81 81 -
Subtotal - Other (364) (364) 1,237 1,601
Contingency Accounts
City Manager 250 158 250 92
City Council 250 (14) 250 264
City Attorney 125 - 125 125
Innovation - 100 100
Subtotal - Contingency Accts 625 144 725 581
TOTAL EXPENSE $5,970 $5,489 $6,162 $673
5/17/2011
5/24/2011
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 24, 2011
SUBJECT: Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Additional Information Pertaining to May 24 Department Hearings
Public Works – Storm Drain Fund
The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding revenues and expenditures
related to the 2005 Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure. The 2005 ballot measure approved by a
majority of property owners authorized an increase in the Storm Drainage Fee from the then-
current rate of $4.25 per month to the revised rate of $10.00 per month for a typically-sized
single-family residential parcel. The ballot measure also authorized an annual rate increase
based on the local rate of inflation or 6 percent, whichever is less. In addition, the ballot measure
authorized the accelerated pre-payment of Storm Drainage Fees for City-owned General Fund
parcels in order to provide more up-front funds for implementation of the recommended capital
improvement projects. The increased Storm Drainage Fee will remain in effect for a period of
12 years (through the end of FY 2017). Staff’s financial model assumed annual rate increases of
3 percent per year through FY 2017.
The additional revenue generated by the Storm Drainage Fee increase in the first year (FY 2006)
was approximately $2.8 million. In addition, there was revenue of $0.7 million from the pre-
payment of Storm Drainage Fees from City-owned properties. In the subsequent six years, there
were approved rate increases of 2.0 percent, 3.4 percent, 3.8 percent, 0.0 percent, 2.6 percent,
and 1.5 percent, resulting in increasing revenues. A summary of the financial model prepared by
staff to estimate revenues and expenditures related to the Storm Drainage Fee increase is
attached for reference (See Attachment 1). The original model was based on an assumption of
annual rate increases of 3 percent per year through FY 2017. The model projected total revenue
of $46.1 million over the 12 years the rate increase would be in effect. The attached spreadsheet
also includes actual revenue figures for FY 2006 through FY 2010, including the General Fund
loan that was secured in FY 2008 to help pay for the construction of the San Francisquito Creek
1
5/24/2011
Storm Water Pump Station. Combining available actual revenue figures with estimated revenue
figures for the remaining years, the expected revenue over the 12-year period is $46.0 million.
The 2005 cost estimate for the seven capital improvement projects to be funded by the Storm
Drainage Fee increase was approximately $14.5 million. That is the estimated cost of the work if
it had all been completed in 2005. In reality, construction costs tend to rise each year based on
inflationary and other economic factors. In the financial model, it was assumed that the project
costs would increase at an annual rate of 3 percent. Based on this assumption, it was estimated
that the total cost of implementing the seven projects in an incremental manner over the 12-year
time period would be approximately $19.2 million. The balance of the revenue was slated to
fund augmented storm drain maintenance and storm water quality programs, annual storm drain
rehabilitation projects, additional engineering staff, and innovative storm drain projects. It
should be noted that the total cost of the projects is highly sensitive to the rate of annual inflation
due to the substantial impact of compound interest. The current financial model predicts that
there will be approximately $24 million (including $1 million of Innovative Funds diverted
towards the Southgate Neighborhood CIP) available to spend on the seven capital improvement
projects over the 12-year life of the rate increase. Based on recent analysis, there is a possibility
of accessing additional funds from the Storm Drainage Fund cash reserves for capital projects. It
was originally assumed that the projected revenue would be adequate to cover the cost of all
seven capital projects. After the bids received for the first few storm drain capital projects were
much higher than the adjusted 2005 cost estimates (adjusted by an assumed annual inflation rate
of 3 percent), however, staff worked with the Storm Drain Oversight Committee to adjust the
cost estimates for the remaining years of the capital spending program. Based on the
construction cost patterns of 2007, the original 2005 cost estimates were escalated by an initial
factor of 30 percent, with subsequent annual adjustments of 10 percent for each year thereafter in
the revised financial model. The predictions that there might not be adequate funds to pay for all
seven of the projects are based on this very conservative model. As a result of the economic
downturn of the past several years, construction costs have lowered and remained relatively flat.
Whether or not Storm Drainage Fund revenue will be sufficient to cover the cost all seven
projects is primarily dependent on future construction cost trends. Given the favorable
construction cost climate of the past two years, the decision to divert some of the Innovative
Fund monies, and the possibility of accessing additional funds from cash reserves, staff is
cautiously optimistic that the projected revenue will in fact cover the full cost of the seven
projects.
Attached is a copy of the current Flood Insurance Rate Map for your reference (Attachment 2).
It should be noted, however, that there is not a direct correlation between the flood map and the
location of the proposed storm drain capital improvement projects. The flood map shows areas
that are subject to inundation in the event of major flooding from the overflow of San
Francisquito Creek and/or the overtopping of the Bayfront levees. Alternatively, the storm drain
capital projects are targeted at areas that experience street flooding as a result of undersized
storm drains.
Non-Department Budget
Attached for your review is the detail for the General Fund Non-Department Budget
(Attachment 3).
2
5/24/2011
City Council
Staff was requested to calculate the actual cost of Council Salaries and Benefits. The revised
Salaries and Benefits budget for the City Council budget is presented in the below table. This
replaces the Salaries and Benefits line of the Inputs table on page 69 of the proposed budget. The
proposed increase in the Council budget is $123,917 and staff recommends offsetting the
increase with a decrease in the Non-Departmental budget for a net zero change in the General
Fund.
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
FY 2010 Adopted Adjusted Proposed Amended
Actuals Budget Budget Budget Budget Change
Salaries and Benefits $193,155 $71,145 $72,309 $94,263 $218,180 $123,917
Salaries $64,800 $64,800
Medicare 940 940
Medical, dental, vision 28,523 107,848
Retiree medical ARC - 44,592
$94,263 $218,180
Council requested information regarding the cost of purchasing iPads to view Council packets
and any other communications from city staff. Potentially, the one-time equipment cost for nine
16GB, 3G/WiFi iPads is $6,210, or $690 each. The monthly data plan cost for an unlimited data
plan is $341, or $4,092 annually. The monthly data plan would be paid for out of the Council’s
budget.
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
Staff is also providing the Finance Committee with follow-up items from previous Budget
Hearing meeting. These items are informational and no action is required.
Administrative Services Department (ASD)
May 3rd – Administrative overhead revenue for ASD increased $440,467 between the FY 2011
adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget. Administrative overhead revenue represents the
allocation of cost incurred by ASD to provide support to the City’s 13 departments. There are
two main reasons for this increase. First, the department’s Personnel Benefits cost increased
$204,467 between the FY 2011 adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget and this increase is then
charged to departments that ASD supports. Second, the Purchasing Division allocates its cost
based on the number of purchase orders for each department. Between FY 2011 and FY 2012,
the number of purchase orders for Enterprise Funds increased 19.81 percent, or a $202,242
increase in administrative overhead revenue from the Enterprise Funds.
General Benefits Fund
On May 5, 2012, as part of the Finance Committee’s review of the General Benefits Fund, staff
was asked to provide information about initiatives or actions taken by other public agencies to
address escalating pension costs. Cities and counties throughout the state are grappling with the
impact growing pension costs are challenged in their ability to provide quality services for their
3
5/24/2011
respective communities. There is growing concern about the extent to which government is
becoming “a pension provider that provides public services on the side.”
The information contained in Attachment 4 is a listing of the most common changes
implemented – or being sought – in other cities and counties. Some changes were implemented
via the collective bargaining process while others were enacted as a result of voter approved
initiatives. While many of the changes focus on new employees, some agencies have made
changes to existing employees’ benefits.
We have also provided a listing of the most recently approved voter initiatives related to public
sector retirement benefits and a summary of specific pension reform measures implemented – or
being sought – in three other cities. The “Local Elected Official Toolkit”, which CalPERS
developed in response to requests for enhanced communication and transparency in the
administration of these benefits, can be found on the CalPERS website at the following address.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/er-forms-pubs/pubs/local-toolkit.pdf
The City of Palo Alto was one of the first agencies in the Bay Area to implement a second tier
pension plan for new employees and many employers throughout the state have recently
followed suit. However, more changes are needed in order to avoid substantial service level
reductions and/or layoffs. Many knowledgeable individuals and agencies – including the
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) – have noted the significant disparity between public and
private sector retirement benefits and the inability of public agencies to sustain these costs. As
we move forward with negotiations with our employee associations, pension and healthcare
modifications must be achieved lest the City’s core duties and responsibilities to the public will
be compromised.
Community Services Department (CSD)
May 12th – As requested by the committee, attached is the Cubberley Financial Summary
(Attachment 5). This summary includes FY 2010 actuals, FY 2011 adjusted Budget, FY 2012
proposed budget, and projections for Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014. Staff will incorporate this
Financial Summary into the FY 2012 adopted budget document.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
May 12th – The Finance Committee noted that the Salary and Benefit change between the FY
2011 adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget increased $142,210. Personnel Benefit cost
increased $377,737 (see p. 165 of the FY 2012 Proposed budget) mainly due to healthcare and
pension cost increases. In addition, the increase in Personnel Benefit costs is offset by a midyear
increase to temporary salary totaling $113,233 and two position changes contained the proposed
budget, totaling $51,580.
May 17th – City staff has received various emails from the community regarding the Ross Road
Traffic Signal project at Oregon Expressway. The Ross Road traffic signal project at Oregon
Expressway will be funded out of previously collected Traffic Impact Fees. The County will
build the traffic signal as part of their larger Oregon Expressway project which includes
modifying all of the signals along Oregon Expressway between Alma Street and W Bayshore,
4
5/24/2011
street resurfacing, and other items. The 95 percent plans from the County should be out in June
and the City has been actively involved in the review of the plans to date. The 95 percent plans
will also include a detailed cost estimate that has not yet been previously available, and will be
used to determine the city's fair-share contribution towards the project for the Ross Road traffic
signal and other city-requested improvements such as pedestrian crossing improvements to
Oregon Way via W Bayshore Rd. The city did not pursue a CIP but rather funded an agreement
with the County directly from the Traffic Impact Fee program. The agreement will allow for
both a cost reduction if construction bids are received below the engineers estimate and provide
for a cap in city costs if bids are over.
The overall Ross Road Bike Boulevard is in the proposed Bike/Pedestrian Plan. Its priority
hierarchy in relation to other Bike Boulevard projects in the plan is not yet determined since the
City is reviewing public input collected from the community. Priority will be weighted against
community preference, use data, and funding allocations. The Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard
project for example has the highest demand for implementation because of its traversing along
the California Avenue Caltrain Station, Palo Alto High School use, and has active funding from
the VTA for implementation in the amount of $60,000. The Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard is
funded in the proposed FY 2012 CIP in the new Transportation & Parking CIP.
To prioritize implementation of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan the City is exploring seven funding
categories with up to seven projects each, likely:
Bike Boulevard
Trail Corridors
Bike Lanes/Routes
Feasibility Studies
Technology & Research Projects
Pedestrian Safety
Across Barrier Connections
The City will schedule one more citywide community meeting in July as preferred by Council
preference to defer approval until to September to allow for additional public input. Regardless
of the Ross Road priority within the new Bike/Pedestrian Plan the corridor will see significant
improvements. The new traffic signal at Oregon Expressway funded by the traffic impact fee
program for example will cost approximately $300,000, one of the largest funded Bike
Boulevard project elements.
General Fund Capital Improvement Program
May 17th – The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding the following
capital improvement projects. Below are the responses received from the Public Works
Department:
Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement (PF-15003)
This project is planned in 2015 and the justification for the Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Replacement Project states that if the roof deteriorates too far, spray-on roofing will not be
viable. The Cubberley Auditorium currently has a 20 year mineral cap built up roof system
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Storm Drainage Fee Increase Financial Model
(Dollar figures are in thousands of dollars)
Year ----------------------------------------->FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 TOTALS
Estimated Fee Increase Revenue $2,675 $2,821 $2,971 $3,126 $3,285 $3,449 $3,618 $3,792 $3,972 $4,156 $4,347 $4,543 $42,755
Estimated Pre-Payment $1,123 $1,123 $1,123 $3,369
Estimated Total Revenue Increase $3,798 $3,944 $4,094 $3,126 $3,285 $3,449 $3,618 $3,792 $3,972 $4,156 $4,347 $4,543 $46,124
Estimated Annual Rate Increase N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Actual Fee Increase Revenue* $2,804 $2,881 $3,042 $3,468 $3,265 $3,407 $3,491 $3,662 $3,837 $4,018 $4,204 $4,396 $42,475
Actual Pre-Payment $534 $935 $935 $2,404
General Fund Loan $1,100 $1,100
Actual Total Revenue Increase* $3,338 $3,816 $5,077 $3,468 $3,265 $3,407 $3,491 $3,662 $3,837 $4,018 $4,204 $4,396 $45,979
Actual Annual Rate Increase* N/A 2% 3.4% 3.8% 0% 2.6% 1.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
* Estimated values used for FY2011 and beyond
7
LEGEND: San Francisquito Creek floodplain
Tidal floodplain
8
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Palo Alto
Non-Departmental Summary
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
Adopted Adjusted Proposed Change
Cubberley - Covernant not to Develop $6,878 $6,878 $7,061 $183
Public Safety Consessions - - (4,289) (4,289)
Attrition Savings (1,500) (1,500) (1,000) 500
Retiree Medical ARC 1,097 1,097
Anticipated Pension Increase - - 1,000 1,000
Management Comp Study 310 310 310 -
FCA VMC 21 21 21 -
Subtotal - Salaries & Benefits (1,169) (1,169) (2,861) (1,692)
Funding for OES Program 1,000 1,000
Rent - Land 156 156 156 -
Vehicle Replacement (483) (483) 483
Other Contract Services (118) (118) 118
Property Taxes 81 81 81 -
Subtotal - Other (364) (364) 1,237 1,601
Contingency Accounts
City Manager 250 158 250 92
City Council 250 (14) 250 264
City Attorney 125 - 125 125
Innovation - 100 100
Subtotal - Contingency Accts 625 144 725 581
TOTAL EXPENSE $5,970 $5,489 $6,162 $673
5/24/2011
9
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
PENSION CHANGES MADE – OR BEING SOUGHT – IN OTHER AGENCIES
■ New employees in “scaled back” Defined Benefit Plan
■ New employees in “hybrid” (part Defined Contribution, part Defined Benefit) plan
■ New employees in 401(K) type pension plan
■ Reduce pension benefits for current employees’ future years service
■ Cap employer contributions
■ Increase pension contributions for new and existing employees, up to 50% of costs
■ Increase minimum retirement age
■ Increase vesting period for pension and/or retiree medical benefits
■ Prohibit pension “spiking” and “single highest year” formulas
■ Prohibit practice of granting retroactive benefits
■ Reduce pension inflators (“colas”)
■ Restructure pension boards to give taxpayers representation
■ Require voter approval for any future benefit increases
■ Eliminate retiree health benefits for new employees
■ Reduce retiree health benefits (new employees and current employees’ future service)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Pension:
Initially, two separate “plans” were being advanced for a proposed ballot measure for
2012. The first was being advanced by the San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and the
second by San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio. The second proposal was endorsed by
external groups such as the San Diego Taxpayers Association.
In April 2011, both parties agreed to a single initiative for the June 2012 ballot due, in
part, to concerns about potential voter confusion if faced with two competing measures.
The measure is called the “Comprehensive Pension Reform (CPR) Initiative. Below
is a summary:
■ Existing Defined Benefit (DB) Plan
1) For new employees, only police officers would continue in DB plan. New police
officers would have the option of enrolling in the Deferred Contribution plan.
2) The maximum benefit would be 80% of pay at age 55, reduced by 3% for each
year that the employee retires before age 55. The benefit amount would be based
on the average salary paid over a 36 month period, not single highest year
3) Would require “fair sharing” of pension costs for all current employees who
remain in – or new police officers who enter – the DB plan. Employees would
share an equal portion of pension costs “except those costs explicitly and
exclusively reserved to the City”
10
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
4) Any compensation increases granted in the five year period following enactment
would not be counted when calculating the pension benefit
■ New Defined Contribution (DC) Plan
1) All new miscellaneous and fire employees would be in a 401 (K) type plan.
2) The City’s contributions would be “based on private sector benchmarks” but
could not exceed 9.2% (miscellaneous) or 11% (public safety).
3) If the City enrolls in Social Security, the City’s total contributions to Social
Security and the DC plan combined could not exceed the 9.2% and 11%
maximums.
■ Other Provisions
1) City would be required to annually post online the total pension payout per
individual retiree (without names) and the last job classification held by the
individual
2) Prior to granting any future compensation increases, an actuarial analysis would
be required to determine the impact said increases would have on the pension
fund.
Retiree Health
The City Council gave initial approval (6-2 vote) to a proposal on May 13, 2011, with a
final vote scheduled for the end of May. The City has tentative agreement with some of
its employee groups but there are no MOUs yet so all the details are not yet available.
The City eliminated retiree health benefits for new hires in 2005 so the changes would
apply to employees hired before 2005.
1) Provides employees with a series of options for retiree benefits, ranging from a
$8,800 annual benefit with monthly contributions from employees to a defined
contribution from the City with no contribution required from the employee
2) Term of agreement is 15 years, with option for City to modify beginning in 2014
if approved by at least six of the eight Council members
11
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Retiree Health:
1) Miscellaneous employees hired after Jan. 2010 and Safety employees hired after
Jan. 2012 have Defined Contribution retiree health plan
2) Employees hired before Jan. 2010 have option to stay in Defined Benefit plan or
elect the Alternative Retiree Medical Plan (ARMP).
3) Employees who elect ARMP receive a lump sum payment equal to the net present
actuarial value of their current retiree medical benefit. 20% of ARMP payment
must be put into a retirement health savings account. The balance can be taken as
taxable cash and/or contribution to deferred compensation account.
4) ARMP payments to employees were financed with a municipal bond issuance
5) 58% of eligible non-safety employees elected ARMP
6) Estimated reduction in unfunded liability - $91 million over 40 years
CITY OF SAN JOSE
On May 13, 2011 the Mayor recommended that the City declare a fiscal emergency and
prepare a ballot measure to significantly modify pension and retiree health benefits for
current and future employees. The San Jose City Council is set to discuss this on May
24, 2011. The Mayor’s proposal includes the following:
1) Implement a hybrid pension plan (any combination of Defined Contribution,
Defined Benefits and Social Security) for new employees
2) City’s contribution to new Defined Contribution plan would be the lesser of a)
50% of the total costs or b) not less than 6.2%, and not more than 9%, of base
salary
3) If a Defined Benefit plan is part of the hybrid model, the retirement age would be
increased to 65 (miscellaneous) or 60 (public safety)
4) New employees must have 20 years of service to be eligible for retiree medical
benefits and would pay at least 50% of the cost of those benefits
5) Reduce benefits for current employees’ future years service to 1.5% per year of
service
6) Increase age of eligibility for current employees by six months each year until
retirement age is 65 (miscellaneous) or 60 (public safety)
7) Increase retiree medical benefit vesting period for current employees by six
months each year until it reaches 20 years
8) Limit annual pension adjustments (“colas”) for retirees to lesser of the increase in
the Bay Area CPI or 1%
9) Additional modification to pension and retiree medical benefits for current
employees if unfunded liabilities increase beyond June 30, 2010 levels
12
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
BALLOT MEASURES
Agency: City of Bakersfield
Measure: D (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (55.53%)
■ New police and fire employees have 2%@50 based on three year salary average (i.e.
not single highest year)
■ New employees pay 100% of their retirement contribution up to 9% of salary
Agency: City of Menlo Park
Measure: L (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (71.3%)
■ New employees have 2%@60
■ Does not apply to police officers
■Voter approval required for any future benefit increases
Agency: City of San Jose
Measure: W (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (72.14%)
■ Modified City charter to remove binding language about pension benefits for newly-
hired employees
Agency: City of San Jose
Measure: V (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (66.41%)
■ Modified City charter to permit binding arbitration only if outside arbitrators are:
1) Required to based awards to employees primarily on the City’s ability to pay, and
2) Prohibited from creating any unfunded liability for the City, increasing police and
firefighter compensation more than the rate of increase in General Fund revenues, or
granting retroactive benefits
Agency: County of Riverside
Measure: M (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (60.84%)
■ Prohibits increases to public safety retirement or death benefits without voter approval
■ Clarifies that the Board of Supervisors retains the discretion to decrease public safety
retirement and death benefits, to the extent permitted by law, without voter approval
13
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
Agency: City of Redding (Shasta County)
Measure: A (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (64.23%)
■ Advisory only
■ City employees and officials to pay their own employee contribution (to be phased in
over a period not to exceed four years)
Agency: City of Redding (Shasta County)
Measure: B (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (69.37%)
■ Advisory only
■Voters recommended city workers to work minimum of 5 years, and be enrolled in
Medicare, before city would contribute to retiree health insurance costs
Agency: City of Carlsbad (San Diego County)
Measure: G (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (64.28%)
■■ City enacted second tier pension formula for new public safety in 2010. New formula
is 2%@50 based on average salary over 36 month period
■ November 2010 ballot measure amends City charter to require voter approval of any
future increases to public safety pension benefits
Agency: City of Pacific Grover (Monterey County)
Measure: R (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (73.89%)
■ In 2008, voters approved Measure Y, which moved all existing employees to a Defined
Contribution plan for future years service. New employees are in DC plan as well
■ 2010 Measure R capped the City’s contribution to employee pension costs at 10%
Agency: City of Los Angeles
Measure: G (March 2011)
Approved: Yes (74.54%)
■ New public safety employees have modified pension formula (2%@50, increasing
to max of 90% of salary)
■ Employees currently pay their own contribution (9% for safety)
■ New employees will also contribute 2% of salary toward retiree health costs
14
ATTACHMENT 5
Cubberley Lease & Covenant Revenues and Expenses
2010-2014 (Fiscal Year Basis) with Inflation
Actual Adj Budget Budget Projected Projected
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenues
Property Rental (long term leases) 1,583,925 1,510,348 1,510,348 1,540,555 1,571,366
Facilities Rental (hourly rental) 927,865 927,152 927,152 954,967 983,616
Cubberley Rental (City office space) 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000
Total Revenue 2,584,790 2,510,500 2,510,500 2,568,522 2,627,982
Expenses
Payments to PAUSD
Lease 4,349,313 4,503,598 4,605,341 4,743,501 4,885,806
Covenant Not To Develop 1,680,684 1,727,786 1,779,619 1,833,008 1,887,998
Child Care Sites 566,847 592,790 620,631 639,250 658,428
Utilities (child care sites)46,981 53,603 55,211 56,867 58,573
Subtotal PAUSD 6,643,824 6,877,777 7,060,803 7,272,627 7,490,806
Departmental Expenditures for Cubberley
Lease Management and Maintenance
(PWD and ASD)
414,772 414,029 418,199 430,745 443,667
Non-maintenance Operating Expense
(CSD)
1,505,585 1,449,974 1,446,573 1,489,970 1,534,669
Subtotal Departmental Expenditures 1,920,357 1,864,003 1,864,772 1,920,715 1,978,337
CIP PF-15003 Cubb Auditorium Roof
Replace**
CIP PF-16000 Cubb Elec Systems
Replacement**
CIP PF-13002 Cubb Mech & Elec
Upgrade**
150,000 1,300,000
CIP PF-00006 (portion) Roofing
Replacement**
150,000 50,000 150,000
Subtotal CIP Expenses for Cubberley 150,000 200,000 1,450,000
Total Expenses 8,564,181 8,741,780 9,075,575 9,393,342 10,919,142
Net (5,979,391) (6,231,280) (6,565,075) (6,824,820) (8,291,161)
Cubberley Operations Only
Rev 2,584,790 2,510,500 2,510,500 2,568,522 2,627,982
Exp 1,920,357 1,864,003 1,864,772 1,920,715 1,978,337
Net 664,433 646,497 645,728 647,806 649,645
Factor 1.346 1.347 1.346 1.337 1.328
Lease credits
Fields (aprox.)(308,438) (317,691) (327,222) (337,039) (347,150)
**Note: These projects are all pending a decision to renew the lease agreement with PAUSD. The current agreement
will expire on December 31, 2013 with the option to renew.
5/24/2011 Cubberley Actuals 2011-2021 with CIPs for Fin Comm.xls
15
Appendix 8
This page is intentionally left blank.
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 3, 2011
2
Budget Schedule
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,7pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 7pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, ASD, ASD Internal Service Funds,
Library
Police, Fire
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
3
FY 2012 General Fund Budget Gap
(in millions)
$0.1Proposed Balanced Budget
(4.3)Less Public Safety Concessions
4.2Revised Gap
0.8Anticipated increase for pension & healthcare
0.1Contingency for Innovations
1.0Funding for Office of Emergency Services
(1.0)Department Reductions
3.3Revised Budget Gap
1.0Expense & Revenue Adjustments to LRFF
$2.3LRFF Gap (3/31)
4
General Fund Overview
Proposed Budget
3.4% revenue increase
3% expense increase
Pension, $2.5M; Healthcare, $0.7M;
Retiree medical, $1.1M
$131 thousand surplus
$27.044 million BSR
balance, 18.5% of
proposed budget
574.35579
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2011 Adjusted FY 2012 Adopted
Mil
l
i
o
n
s
120
170
220
270
320
370
420
470
520
570
Revenue Expense FTE
FT
E
5
General Fund Major Revenues
General Fund Major RevenuesLast 20 Years Plus Forecast for FY 2011 and FY 2012 25.3 26.0
14.0 13.3 14.8
17.9
20.0
18.0 19.3 20.1
18.0 19.5 20.2
9.4
10.8 10.9
6.6 7.4 8.2
5.6 5.7 5.4
3.1 3.7 4.0 4.3
12.1
7.58.1
21.5
Property Tax
8.1 7.7
9.5
13.8
16.7
26.025.4
25.8 22.2Sales Tax
Utility User's Tax
5.9 6.55.8
11.3
7.3
5.0 5.4 5.5 5.1
11.0
5.3 5.7 6.7
3.2 3.1 3.6
Transient Occupancy Tax9.4
5.1
6.97.1
1.41.31.2
Documentary Tax2.0 3.1 4.4
2.9
$-
$3
$6
$9
$12
$15
$18
$21
$24
$27
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fiscal Year
Millions
6
General Fund Revenue By Type
$146.3 Million / Proposed FY 2012
TOT, $8,204 , 6%
Documentary Transfer Tax,
$4,269 , 3%
Charges for Services , $21,654 , 15%
UUT, $10,859 , 7%
Other Taxes and Fines , $2,330
, 2%
Sales Tax, $20,246 , 14%
Operating Transfers‐In,
$19,606 , 13%
From Other Agencies, $155 ,
0%
Property Tax, $26,052 , 17%
Rental Income, $13,914 , 10%
Charges to Other Funds,
$10,505 , 7%
Other Revenue, $1,428 , 1%
Permits & Licenses, $5,778 , 4%
Return on Investment, $1,318
, 1%
2
7
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Department
Administration
Public Works
Planning
Public Safety
CSD & Library
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Millions
8
General Fund Summary of Appropriations
by Expenditure Category
$146.2 Million / Proposed FY 2012
General Expense,
$10,868, 7%
Facilities & Equip,
$410, 0%Rents & Leases, $731,
1%
Allocated Charges,
$15,762, 11%Supplies & Materials,
$3,154, 2%
Salaries & Benefits,
$91,750, 63%
Contract Services,
$11,892, 8%
Transfers Out,
$11,620, 8%
9
Citywide Budget Summary
(in millions)
100%$482.594$70.902$411.692Total
$300.453
$182.141
Total
62.3%$34.947$265.506Enterprise Funds
37.7%$35.955$146.186General Fund
Percent
of TotalCapitalOperating
* Table does not include Internal Service Funds
10
Citywide CIP Funding Sources
$72.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
Bond Proceeds,
$16,150
Gas Tax, $2,150
Fees & Charges,
$6,207
Utility Rate Charges,
$22,037
Other Agencies,
$5,829
Infrastructure
Reserve, $10,145
General Fund, $1,634
Accumulated Cash for
Refuse Post Closure
Liability, $6,100IS Fund Balance,
$1,530
11
Enterprise Funds Overview
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY
11 Bill
Proposed
FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%
Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%
User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3%
Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysisFY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
12
Citywide Position Changes
Operating Budget, pp. 361‐364
Reduction of 6.6 full‐time equivalent (FTE) positions citywide
Net Citywide change is 1,018.6 to 1,015.1
General Fund net decrease –5 FTE
3.5 FTE ongoing; 1.5 one‐time
Refuse Fund additional layoffs once the landfill is closed
Added 3.1 FTE Citywide
3
13
General Fund Impact of Citywide Changes
Personnel Benefit Increase $4.3M
Pension, $2.5M; Healthcare, $0.7M; Retiree
medical, $1.1M
Allocated Charge Increase $542,176
IT related, $476,280: desktop & application
replacement/maintenance, support,
telecommunications
Other changes in allocated charges $65,896
Administrative Overhead Charge Revenue
Overall increase in employee benefits
14
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
15
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Attorney, pp. 43‐50
Citywide Changes: $65,031
Personnel Benefits increase $59,143
Allocated Charges increase $5,888
Revenue: ($393,519)
Administrative overhead charge decrease, ($358,519)
Revenue from Stanford decrease ($35,000)
Expense: ($10,496)
Decrease outside counsel contract expense ($10,000)Decrease instruction and training ($496)
FTE Changes: 0.60 FTE eliminated; ($67,871)
Eliminate 0.60 FTE Claims Investigator ($74,644)Eliminate Law Clerk Program ($28,160)
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to 1.0 FTE Claims Investigator $7,149
Funding for possible staffing adjustments $27,784
16
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Auditor, pp. 53‐55
Citywide Changes: $39,368
Personnel Benefits increase $37,224
Allocated Charge increase $2,144
Revenue: ($203,972)
Decrease in reimbursement from Electric Fund ($35,000)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($168,972)
Expense: ($15,756)
Decrease audit contract expense ($24,256)
Office supplies to instruction and training $2,000
Increase in citizen survey costs $3,500
Increase in two person peer‐review $5,000
17
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Clerk, pp. 59‐66
Citywide Changes: $47,980
Personnel Benefits increase $44,359
Allocated Charge increase $3,621
Expense: $338,000
Increase election expense $320,000
Increase agenda publication $35,000
Decrease contracting for minutes ($10,000)
Decrease recruitment ad costs ($7,000)
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Council, pp. 69‐70
Citywide Changes: $23,146
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $23,146
Revenue: ($105,319)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($105,319)
Expense: $30,000
Increase contract services for CAO evaluations
$30,000
4
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Manager, pp. 73‐81
Citywide Changes: $47,638
Personnel Benefits increase $41,066
Allocated charge increase $6,572
Revenue: $116,019
Administrative overhead charge increase $116,019
Expense: ($12,066)
Decrease supplies and general expenses ($12,066)
20
City Manager (continued)
FTE Changes: $51,325; 0.75 hourly FTE added
Increase of 0.75 hourly Mgmt Spec FTE $38,516
Changes in Administrative support, net $12,809
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Planning and
Community Environment ($43,958)
Reclass 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative
Associate III; added 0.5 FTE, net $56,767
Amendment to Proposed Budget –no net impact to General
Fund
Move Economic Development Division to City Manager’s Office
1.05 FTE, $220,464 (0.05 FTE Asst to CM; 1 FTE Mgr Econ
Development)
Non‐salary, $26,290
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Human Resources
Citywide Changes: $107,738
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $100,157
Allocated charge increase $7,584
Revenue: $230,525
Administrative overhead charge increase $230,525
Expense: ($17,104) (one‐time)
Decrease in contract agency personnel, program and
consultants, equipment, and relocation expenses
22
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Library Department, pp. 145‐155
Citywide Changes: $249,911Personnel Benefits costs increasing $189,686Allocated Charge costs increasing $60,225
Revenue: ($28,878)Decrease from Friends of Library (FOPAL) ($23,500)Decrease to reflect historical trend ($5,378)
Expense: ($12,115)
Decrease library portable lease, increase materials (FOPAL) ($21,115)Increase contract for Link+ program (one‐time) $10,000Decrease contract for damaged books ($1,000)
FTE Changes: $53,752, 3.06 Hourly FTE increase
Freeze 1.0 FTE Librarian (one‐time) ($97,269)Increase 3.06 hourly FTE $155,021Eliminate overtime for Library Managers ($4,000)
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Administrative Services, pp 85‐96
Citywide Changes: $204,467
Information Technology becomes a department
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $204,467
Revenue: $440,467Administrative overhead charge increase $440,467
FTE Changes: $17,711; 0.20 FTE added
Drop 1.0 FTE Budget Manager, add 1.0 FTE Chief Budget Officer $19,413
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to 1.0 FTE
Budget Officer $13,094
24
Administrative Services (continued)
FTE Changes (continued):
Reclass 1.0 Deputy Director, Administrative Services
to Assistant Director, Administrative Services;
reallocate 0.10 FTE Enterprise Funds, $24,415
Add 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst $12,271
Drop 1.0 FTE Graphics Designer, add 1.0 FTE
Administrative Associate III ($11,526)
Reduce temporary salaries ($37,949)
Reduce overtime ($2,007)
5
25
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Information Technology, pp. 344‐351
Citywide Changes : $443,312
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $361,068
Administrative overhead cost increase $82,244
Revenue: $154,104
Increase in IT support revenue $839,058
Decrease operating transfers for CIP ($739,054)
Miscellaneous revenue increases $54,100
26
Information Technology (continued)
FTE Changes: $477,991
Correction to base salary $327,972
Title change and comp adjustment 1.0 FTE Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer $48,801
Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant $21,958
Increase temporary salaries $79,260
CIP Impacts to Technology Fund will be discussed 5/24
Net decrease $280,946
Decrease CIP expense ($1,020,000)
Decrease operating transfers in for CIP ($739,054)
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 352‐353
Citywide Changes: $7,868
Increase Personnel Benefits costs $20,110
Administrative overhead cost increase ($12,242)
Expense: ($1,500)
Decrease uniforms ($1,500)
28
General Benefits Fund
–FY 2011 Adjusted Budget: $34.1 million
–FY 2012 Proposed Budget: $36.6 million
–$5.5 million (16%) increase driven by:
•$4.2 million increase in Pension costs
•$1.3 million increase in Healthcare costs
29
Actual & Projected PERS Employer Rates
13.105%8.645%FY 2011 to FY 2014 Change
5.5%3.1%Year to Year Change
37.8%26.2%FY 2014 Projected Rate
2.175%1.375%Year to Year Change
32.3%23.1%FY 2013 Projected Rate
5.430%4.170%Year to Year Change
30.125%21.725%FY 2012 Rate
24.695%17.555%FY 2011 Current Rate
SafetyMiscellaneous
30
Citywide Pension Expense
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1 $4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2$19.5$20.8$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.7 $25.2
$29.5
$6.9
$29.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mil
l
i
o
n
s
6
31
Healthcare Costs
+9.8%$14.9 million2012
Adopted
(.08%)$13.6 million2011
Adjusted
+1.1%$13.7 million2010
Actual
+3.9%$13.5 million2009
Actual
-$13 million2008
Actual
Percent changeCity paid medical, dental and vision
costs
Fiscal Year
32
Workers’ Compensation
136$1,788,1815 Year Avg.
154$2,552,6812006
139$1,648,1602007
140$1,993,1462008
134$1,627,2322009
112$1,119,6872010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million
33
General Liability
137$954,9855 Year Avg.
107$649,2792006
149$1,280,5792007
160$934,4232008
126$691,9862009
144$1,218,6572010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
34
Retiree Medical Fund
•City is fully funding its Actuarial Required
Contribution (ARC) of $9.8 million in FY 2012
•Change in allocation methodology that
impacts the General Fund
• Revised actuarial study will be completed Fall
2011
35
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
36
Pension Cost Sharing
*Expressed as a percent of salary (e.g. in 2008, for every $100 of salary paid to
misc. employees the City paid $18.50 toward pension costs)
** IAFF members began picking up 9% of these costs in exchange for a 9.9% salary increase
0**39.1%SEIU – 5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU – 24%
MGT – 27.7%
2012
0**33.7%SEIU -5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU –19.8%
MGT 23.55%
2011
033%025.1%2010
033.5%025%2009
032.6%018.5%2008
Employee Paid*City Paid*Employee Paid*City Paid*Fiscal Year
Public Safety PlanMiscellaneous Plan
7
37
Healthcare Cost Sharing
–Cost sharing implemented for
miscellaneous employees in
April 2011 (medical only)
–Full 90/10 split is expected to be
achieved in 3-4 years
–Miscellaneous pay 4% of
medical premiums for
themselves and dependents,
increasing to 10% in future
years
–Public Safety employees do not
currently make a contribution to
the cost of medical premiums
for themselves or dependents
Example of cost sharing for Misc. employees using 2011 Blue Shield rates
$900/yr$21,072/yrEmployee + Family
$696/yr$15,516/yrEmployee + 1
$348/yr$8,364/yrEmployee Only
Employee PaysCity Pays
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 5, 2011
2
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, 6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, Fire, Technology Fund, ASD, and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing
Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp,
General Liability, Retiree Medical)
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
3
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department, pp. 121-132
Citywide Changes: $558,524
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs $484,609
Increase Allocated Charges $73,915
Revenue: $978,002
Increase Stanford Fire Services
Reimbursement $746,002
Increase Plan Checking Fee $232,000
4
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department (continued)
Expense: $1,252,989
Increase Overtime Salaries $1,247,400
Increase Fees for State Emergency Medical
Technician Certification $4,000
Increase Direct (Utility) Charges $1,589
FTE Changes: $127,483 (one-time)
Backfill OES Coordinator with hourly $49,795
Backfill Deputy Fire Chief with hourly $77,688
5
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Police Department, pp. 173-187
Citywide Changes: $1,429,346
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs - $1,299,681
Increase Allocated Charges - $129,665
Revenue: ($136,142)
Elimination of reimbursement from Utilities for
after hours alarm monitoring - ($175,000)
Other revenue changes - $38,858
6
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Police Department (continued)
Expense: ($115,900)
Eliminate contract expense for parking garage
security – ($160,000)
Add funding for Track Watch program - $70,000
Decrease supplies and other miscellaneous expenses
– ($25,900)
FTE Changes: $8,780
Reclass 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist I to
Animal Services Specialist II - $8,780
2
7
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Information Technology, pp. 344-351
Citywide Changes: $443,312
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $361,068
Administrative overhead cost increase $82,244
Revenue: $154,104
Increase in IT support revenue $839,058
Decrease operating transfers for CIP ($739,054)
Miscellaneous revenue increases $54,100
8
Information Technology (continued)
FTE Changes: $477,991
Correction to base salary $327,972
Title change and comp adjustment 1.0 FTE Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer $48,801 (salary and benefits)
Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant $21,958 (salaries and benefits)
Increase temporary salaries $79,260
CIP Impacts to Technology Fund will be discussed 5/24
Net decrease ($280,946)
Decrease CIP expense ($1,020,000)Decrease operating transfers in for CIP ($739,054)
9
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Administrative Services, pp. 85-96
Citywide Changes: $204,467
Information Technology becomes a department
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $204,467
Revenue: $440,467
Administrative overhead charge increase $440,467
FTE Changes: $17,711; 0.20 FTE added
Reduce temporary salaries ($37,949)
Reduce overtime ($2,007)
10
Administrative Services (continued)
FTE Changes (continued):
ASD Administration Division $36,686
Reclass 1.0 Deputy Director, Administrative Services to Assistant Director, Administrative Services; reallocate 0.10 FTE Enterprise Funds, $24,415
Add 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst $12,271
Budget Division Reorganization $20,981
Drop 1.0 FTE Budget Manager, add 1.0 FTE Chief Budget Officer $19,413
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to 1.0 FTE Budget Officer $13,094
Drop 1.0 FTE Graphics Designer, add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate III ($11,526)
11
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 352-353
Citywide Changes: $7,868
Increase Personnel Benefits costs $20,110
Administrative overhead cost decrease ($12,242)
Expense: ($1,500)
Decrease uniforms ($1,500)
FTE Changes ($25,609)
Decrease temporary salaries ($25,609)
12
General Benefits Fund
–FY 2011 Adjusted Budget: $34.1 million
–FY 2012 Proposed Budget: $39.6 million
–$5.5 million (16%) increase driven by:
•$4.2 million increase in Pension costs
•$1.3 million increase in Healthcare costs
3
13
Actual & Projected PERS Employer Rates
13.105%8.645%FY 2011 to FY 2014 Change
5.5%3.1%Year to Year Change
37.8%26.2%FY 2014 Projected Rate
2.175%1.375%Year to Year Change
32.3%23.1%FY 2013 Projected Rate
5.430%4.170%Year to Year Change
30.125%21.725%FY 2012 Rate
24.695%17.555%FY 2011 Current Rate
SafetyMiscellaneous
14
Citywide Pension Expense
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1 $4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2$19.5$20.8$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.7 $25.2
$29.5
$6.9
$29.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mil
l
i
o
n
s
15
Healthcare Costs
+9.8%$14.9 million2012
Adopted
(.08%)$13.6 million2011
Adjusted
+1.1%$13.7 million2010
Actual
+3.9%$13.5 million2009
Actual
-$13 million2008
Actual
Percent changeCity paid medical, dental and vision costsFiscal Year
16
Workers’ Compensation
136$1,788,1815 Year Avg.
154$2,552,6812006
139$1,648,1602007
140$1,993,1462008
134$1,627,2322009
112$1,119,6872010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million □FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million
17
General Liability
137$954,9855 Year Avg.
107$649,2792006
149$1,280,5792007
160$934,4232008
126$691,9862009
144$1,218,6572010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
18
Retiree Medical Fund
• City is fully funding its Actuarial Required
Contribution (ARC) of $9.8 million in FY
2012
• Change in allocation methodology that
impacts the General Fund
• Revised actuarial study will be completed
Fall 2011
4
19
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
20
Pension Cost Sharing
*Expressed as a percent of salary (e.g. in 2008, for every $100 of salary paid to misc. employees the City paid $18.50 toward pension costs)
** IAFF members began picking up 9% of these costs in exchange for a 9.9%
salary increase
0**39.1%SEIU – 5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU – 24%
MGT – 27.7%
2012
0**33.7%SEIU -5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU –19.8%
MGT 23.55%
2011
033%025.1%2010
033.5%025%2009
032.6%018.5%2008
Employee Paid*City Paid*Employee Paid*City Paid*Fiscal
Year
Public Safety PlanMiscellaneous Plan
21
Healthcare Cost Sharing
–Cost sharing implemented for miscellaneous employees in April 2011 (medical only)
–Full 90/10 split is expected to be achieved in 3-4 years
–Miscellaneous pay 4% of medical premiums for themselves and dependents, increasing to 10% in future years
–Public Safety employees do not currently make a contribution to the cost of medical premiums
for themselves or dependents
Example of cost sharing for Misc. employees using 2011 Blue Shield rates
$900/yr$21,072/yrEmployee +
Family
$696/yr$15,516/yrEmployee + 1
$348/yr$8,364/yrEmployee Only
Employee PaysCity Pays
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 12, 2011
2
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP, Non-Departmental, City Council
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, Fire, Technology Fund, ASD, and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing
Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp,
General Liability, Retiree Medical)
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
3
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Community Services Department (CSD),
pp. 98-118
Revenue: ($112,583)
Reduce golf course revenue ($70,000)
Increase middle school athletics & recreation camps revenue $70,000
Decrease class program revenue to reflect historical trend ($47,500)
One-time midyear adjustments ($65,083)
4
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
CSD (continued)
Salary, Benefits, and FTE Changes: $624,690Eliminate 0.5 full-time FTE; add 0.54 hourly FTE
Freeze Program Assistant I ($48,460)Eliminate 0.5 FTE Coordinator for Family Resources Program ($50,711) – results in 1 layoffEliminate 0.48 hourly FTE at Cubberley and Lucie Stern ($17,590)Add 1.02 hourly FTE for Athletics and Camps (offset by revenues) $38,000Personnel Benefits costs increasing $703,451
5
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
CSD (continued)
Expense: ($97,449)
Increase in bank service charges $23,000
Maintenance of public art $35,000
Reduction in water consumption for turf ($25,000)Reduction in Vehicle Fund charges ($137,449) Middle School Athletics materials and supplies $7,000
Expense Related One-Time Midyear
Adjustments: $56,113
Decrease in Allocated Charges ($34,521)
6
CSD (continued)
Amendments to Proposed Budget
0.5 FTE Program Assistant I
Temporary reduction in work hours due to Art Center
renovations
HSRAP Funding
Council Contingency $27,761
Department reorganization
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
2
7
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Planning and Community Environment
(PCE), pp. 158-170
Revenue: $737,238
Increase various permit and planning revenues $1,786,827
Midyear adjustments ($1,049,589)
FTE Changes: $237,748; 0.5 FTE reduced
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from
City Manager’s Office $43,958
Personnel Benefits costs increase $377,737One-Time Midyear Adjustments ($183,947)
8
PCE (continued)
Expense: $196,758
Contract expense reductions ($15,000)
Development Center $634,761
Project manager, customer service, plan check, and building inspection consultant expense (one-time) $280,333
Bankcard service charges $36,000
Transition plan funding (add’l staffing and consultant costs) $300,000
Lease expense $18,428
Allocated Charges increase $52,772
One-time Adjustments ($475,775)
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
9
PCE (continued)
Development Center Transition Plan $285,769
Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning and Transportation Official, add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director PCE $28,231
Add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II $95,538
Add one contracted Building Technician $81,000
Add one contracted Planning Technician $81,000
Amendments to Proposed Budget: ($95,769)
Rail Corridor Study (CMR 1319) $110,000Return remaining Development Center Transition Plan Funds ($14,231)
Move Economic Development to City Manager’s Office – no net impact to General Fund ($246,754)
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
10
Proposed Budget FY 2012
• Questions
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 17, 2011
2
2012 Proposed Citywide CIP
Projects by Fund
9
8
7
6
5432
1
1- Capital Project Fund (General Fund) - 49%
2- Technology Fund - 3% = $2.5 million
3- Electric Fund - 12%
4-Fiber Optics Fund - 1%
5- Gas Fund - 11%
6- Water Fund - 7%
7- Wastewater Collection Fund - 6%
8- Storm Drain Fund - 3%
9- Refuse Fund - 8%
3
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
•Internal CIP Committee Process
– CIP Committee began meetings in November 2010
– Reviewed prioritization criteria and prioritized projects
– Reviewed projected Infrastructure Reserve Balance– Reviewed current capacity - staff’s ability to start and complete projects as budgeted
– Met with the Planning and Transportation Commission to get input on the CIP Plan
4
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Total General Fund Proposed Projects - $35.9 million
2
1
3
4
1. Land, Buildings & Facilities - 51%
2. Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3. Parks and Open Space - 10%
4. Miscellaneous - 19%
2
1
3
4
1. Land, Buildings & Facilities - 51%
2. Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3. Parks and Open Space - 10%
4. Miscellaneous - 19%
5
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Infrastructure Reserve ($000)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
SOURCES
General Fund Annual Capital Transfer 10,478 10,892 11,334 11,787 12,288 56,778
Interest Income 1,075 946 871 862 944 4,699
Project Reimbursements
Measure N Library Bonds 16,150 0 0 0 0 16,150
Local Agency 5,828 1,600 0 0 0 7,428
Gas Tax Fund 2,150 1,650 1,625 1,625 1,625 8,675
Development Impact Fees -Park 0 220 0 220 0 440
Stanford Research Park Traffic
Mitigation Impact Fees 470 00047
Total Sources 35,728 15,308 13,830 14,494 14,857 94,217
USES
Budgeted CIP Projects 35,955 16,183 15,752 14,626 12,847 95,363
Total Uses 35,955 16,183 15,752 14,626 12,847 95,363
Sources over (short)(227) (874) (1,922) (132) 2,010 (1,146)
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, beginning 4,108 3,881 3,007 1,085 953 4,108
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, ending 3,881 3,007 1,085 953 2,963 2,963
6
Proposed CIP Budget FY 2012
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) Five year projection
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
2
7
FY 2011 Accomplishments
$3.8M Street Resurfacing Project
Greer Park Improvements
Library ProjectsCompletion College Terrace LibraryDowntown Library Reopening June 2011Started construction on Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
8
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects
Projects removed or moved to FY 2013-2016 from FY 2012 Adopted-In-Concept (as a result of prioritization exercise)
Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements (PF-07002) – moved to FY 2015 - $267KMunicipal Services Center Improvement (PF-05002) –moved to FY 2014 - $341KVentura Building Improvements (PF-06002) – moved to FY 2014 - $600KOff-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair (OS-09001) – defunded for FY 2012 - $100KRinconada Park Improvements (PE-08001) – moved to FY 2013 and budget increased to $1.3M
9
Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design -$150KMunicipal Service Center Facility Study - $100KFoothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program $200KEleanor Pardee Park Improvements - $674KMagical Bridge Playground - $1.3MCalifornia Ave. Transit Hub Corridor - $1.2MStreet Resurfacing - $3.5MSidewalk Repairs - $750KLibrary Measure N Furniture and Technology $3.1M
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Highlights of Projects Funded in FY 2012
(pages 63‐136 of Proposed Capital Budget 2012)
10
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
(IBRC)
Schedule
• July 18 - Council Study Session
• Sept 12 - Interim Report to Council
• Dec 12 – Final Report to Council
IBRC Committees
• “Above Ground” Facilities
• “Surface” Facilities
•Finance
11
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
(IBRC)
Preliminary Needs Assessment
• Deferred Maintenance - $ 69 M
• Replacement /Renovation - $ 196 M
• Planned Maintenance - $ 244 M
• TOTAL CAPITAL NEEDS - $ 509 M
• Next steps: Assessment of “Gap” with respect to
known funding.
12
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Changes to Proposed Document
• PE-86070 Street Improvement: transfer $2.0 million
from FY 2012 to FY 2011
• PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor:
options for potential project changes will be
presented to Council in fall of 2011
3
13
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Questions
14
Proposed Technology Fund CIP
Budget FY 2012
Key Projects Funded in FY 2012
(pages 271‐279)
•Library Computer System Software $350,000
•Library RFID Implementation $150,000
additional funding
•Telephone System Replacement $1.4 million
additional funding
15
Technology Fund CIP Budget FY 2012
Changes to Proposed Document
• TE-11004 Utilities Bill Enhancements:
eliminate $150K project funding from 2012
16
Proposed Technology Fund CIP Budget
FY 2012
• Questions
17
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Highlights
Rate AdjustmentsFiber Optics- 1.5% CPI adjustmentWastewater- cost of service analysis adjustment; no net sales revenue changeWater- 12.5% increase plus cost of service analysis adjustment
Position Changes
Add 1.0 FTE Utility Account Representative $121,359
Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Coordinator, Utility Projects to Business Analyst $17,142Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Utility Engineering Estimator to Business Analyst $12,527
Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Maintenance Mechanic to Maintenance Mechanic –Welding $3,567
Drop 1.0 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.5 FTE Senior Financial Analyst ($154,446)
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($3.5 million)
Reduction in surplus energy - ($1.5 million)
Decrease other income related to Central Valley Project (CVP) loan repayment –
($1.2 million)
Offset by $1.2 million expense reduction – net zero impact to fund
Lower load forecast – ($0.5 million)
Decrease interest income – ($0.3 million)
4
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237 (Operating)
Expense decrease: ($4.1 million)Increase energy efficiency program expense – $0.9 millionIncrease salaries and benefits - $0.7 millionAdd 1.0 FTE Utilities Account RepresentativeDrop 0.5 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.25 FTE Senior Financial AnalystReallocate 1.0 FTE Resource Planner from Gas Fund
Increase allocated charges – $0.6 million
Increase equity transfer to General Fund – $0.4 million
Increase contract services- upgrade emergency notification system – $0.1 million
Decrease electric commodity purchases – ($4.2 million)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($1.8 million)
Decrease operating transfers to other funds – ($0.6 million)
Decrease in various contract services – ($0.2 million)
20
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 147-175 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $8.7 million
Undergrounding districts and rebuilding – $2.0 million
Substation transformer replacement; 4kV to 12kV conversions – $2.0 million
Customer connections – $2.0 million
General distribution system improvements – $1.8 million
LED streetlight conversion – $0.8 million
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237
22
Last Update: May 11, 2010 (Draft)
0.10440.11410.1151
0.1235
0.1270
0.1273
0.1290
0.12980.13220.13400.13490.13560.13640.1421
0.1422
0.1440
0.1444
0.1450
0.15060.15400.15410.15960.1740
0.1178
Santa ClaraMerced IDPalo AltoSMUD
Turlock ID
Roseville
Redding
LADWP
AlamedaAzusaRancho Cucam. Imperial IDAnaheimModesto IDPasadenaGlendale
Riverside
SCE
Burbank
PGE
LompocLodiSDG&EBanning
(*) Based on self reported survey by California Municipal Rates Group members
2011 Expected Average System Revenue
per KWh ($/KWh)(*)
As of Jan 14, 2011
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 241-245 (Operating); pp. 179-180 (Capital)
Revenue increase: $0.3 million
Net increase of 11 new connections (173 individual connections)
1.5% CPI rate adjustment for rate schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2
Expense decrease: ($0.1 million)
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $0.1 million
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.2 million)
Capital Improvement Program- FY 2012 Expenditures: $0.5 million
Fiber optics network system improvements – $0.3 million
Fiber optics customer connections – $0.2 million
24
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 241-245
5
25
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 249-261 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($0.9 million)Decrease sales revenue due to lower market costs – ($0.9 million)
Expense decrease: ($1.4 million)Increase contract services for crossbore program safety initiative – $3.8 millionIncrease equity transfer to General Fund – $0.7 million
Increase energy efficiency program expense – $0.3 million
Increase personnel benefits costs – $0.1 million
Decrease gas commodity purchases – ($5.2 million)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($0.5 million)
Decrease operating transfers to other funds – ($0.4 million)
Decrease salaries – ($0.1 million)Reallocate 1.0 FTE Resource Planner to Electric FundDrop 0.5 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.25 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
26
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 183-198 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $7.8 million
Gas main replacement projects – $6.4 million
System improvements and replacements –$0.7 million
Customer connections – $0.7 million
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 249-261
Transfer will be made from Supply RSR to Distribution RSR to bring ending reserve balances within guidelines at year-end FY 2012
28
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department, pp. 121-132
Citywide Changes: $558,524
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs $484,609
Increase Allocated Charges $73,915
Revenue: $978,002
Increase Stanford Fire Services Reimbursement $746,002
Increase Plan Checking Fee $232,000
Expense: $642,989
Increase Overtime Salaries $637,400 (Total of $1.25 million increase over FY 2011 & FY 2012)
Increase Fees for State Emergency Medical Technician Certification $4,000
Increase Direct (Utility) Charges $1,589
FTE Changes: $127,483 (one-time)
Increase (backfill) OES Coordinator with Hourly $49,795
Increase (backfill) Deputy Fire Chief – EMT with Hourly $77,688
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
City of Palo Alto - Gas Bill Comparison with PG&E
Average Residential Customer Annual Bill30/100 therms per summer/winter month
PG&E Palo Alto
Fiscal Year
29
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 265-271 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($0.1 million)No net sales revenue changeRate changes to align rates with cost of service analysis; 13% residential increase
Decrease other income from ground water discharge revenue – ($0.1 million)
Expense increase: $0.2 millionIncrease wastewater treatment charges – $0.5 millionIncrease personnel benefits costs – $0.2 millionIncrease Capital Improvement Program – $0.1 million
Decrease operating transfer to Refuse Fund – ($0.4 million)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($0.1 million)
30
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 225-239
(Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $4.3 million
Rehabilitation and augmentation of collection systems – $3.1 million
Replacement of sewer laterals and manholes – $0.6 million
Sewer system extensions – $0.3 million
Wastewater system improvements – $0.2 million
6
31
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 265-271
32
Monthly Wastewater Bill Comparison
Residential
22.99 23.09
53.10
24.65 24.20
19.40
48.72
24.24
54.17
27.91
57.50
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Palo Alto Mountain View Santa Clara Redwood City Los Altos Menlo Park
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Bill
($
)
Current Proposed (July 1, 2011)
33
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 275-286 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $1.8 million
Rate increase of 12.5% plus changes to align rates with cost of service analysis
Average residential increase of 11.4%
Expense increase: $0.3 million
Increase water commodity purchases – $3.7 million
Increase equipment rental for lease of emergency generators for water pumps –$0.6 million
Increase personnel benefits costs – $0.2 million
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($4.0 million)
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.2 million)
34
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 201-221 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $4.9 million
Seismic water system upgrades – $2.7 million
Water recycling facility – $0.5 million
System improvements – $0.4 million
Water system extensions – $0.4 million
Water main replacements – $0.3 million
Water meters – $0.2 million
Water service hydrant replacement – $0.2 million
Rate Stabilization Reserve is projected to decrease ($3.9 million) to $11.2
million (above guideline of $4.6 million to $9.2 million)
35
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 275-286
36
Palo Alto ‐Proposed
Redwood City
Mountain View
Palo Alto ‐Current
Bear Gulch ‐MP
Santa Clara
$‐
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Bil
l
($
)
Usage Per Monthly Bill (CCf)
Single Family Residential Monthly Water Bills
Benchmark City Comparisons
5/8" Meter
7
37
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY 11 Bill Proposed FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%
Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3% Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
38
Proposed Budget FY 2012
• Questions
39
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget ReviewKick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, W rap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP,
Non-Departmental, City Council
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, F ire, Tech no log y F und, ASD , and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp, General Liability, Retiree Medical)
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
W ith City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 24, 2011
2
Office of Emergency Services
(OES)
Re-organization Proposal
3
Current State of Office of Emergency
Services (OES)
• Presently situated in Fire Department
• FY 2012 Budget - $457,000 (salary and non-
salary) (Memo Correction)
– 1.4 FTE - Dedicated OES Staff
– 1.2 FTE - Fire staff allocation in support
4
Recommendations by Consultant
1) OES staff to four
a) OES reports to City Manager
2) Implement plan to improve Emergency
Operations Center
3) Consolidate information from technical
studies and additional analysis
5
Personnel
• Staff recommends (staff of three):
– Senior Manager (Mgmt) $ 233,325
– Senior Coordinator (Mgmt) 152,500
– Hourly Staff Support 90,106
Total: $ 475,931
– Analyze operations after the first year and make decision whether to increase staffing (per consultant’s recommendation)
– Anticipate hiring in the Senior Manager in Summer of 2011
– Other staff members to be hired in Fall of 2011
6
Non‐Salary Costs
• Program & Operating (On-going)- $265,000
(e.g. safety & Office Supplies, storage, rent, indirect, and
misc. costs)
• OES Study Recommendations (One-time)-
$335,00
(e.g. HAZUS, Hazard mitigation plan, operating costs)
7
Cost Summary
• Total Staff and Expenses $ 833,325
– Less: One-time Expenses ( 335,000)
• Total Proposed new OES Expenses
498,325
• Existing OES Budget within Fire 457,000
(Memo Correction)
• Grand Total New & Existing (on-going)
Expenses $ 955,325
8
Examples of OES efforts
• Update City’s Emergency Operations Plan
• Develop and implement training for City Staff and family emergency preparedness
• Enhance interoperable communications with virtual consolidation of dispatch centers
• Develop training and exercise plan
• Implement Foothills Fire Management Plan
• Expansion of CERT Program
• Implement Medical Reserve Corps
• Hold Community Exercise
• Seek grant funding for program improvements
9
Conclusion
• Update Council via information report on
progress with new OES re-organization
and EPREP as a Council Priority at the
mid-year.
Public Works Department
Department Restructure –Current Organization
10
Public Works Department
Department Restructure ‐New Organization
11
Director
EnvironmentalServices EngineeringServices PublicServices
Refuse Programs
Environmental Compliance
Wastewater Treatment (RWQCP)
Capital Projects
Storm Drain Programs
Private Development Reviews
BuildingsStreetsSidewalksParksOpen Space
Urban Forestry
Building Maintenance
Street & Traffic Maintenance
Storm Drain Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Public Works Department
Department Reorganization General Fund Cost Benefit*
12
Eliminate 1.00 FTE Mgr. Fac. Maint & Proj. ($ 177,443)Eliminate .60 FTE Supt. PW Operations ($ 109,264)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Admin. Assoc. I ($ 87,916)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Project Manager ($ 141,340)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Managing Arborist ($ 119,651)Add 1.00 FTE Urban Forester (TBD) $ 150,343Move 1.00 FTE Arborist from Planning to Public Works – Net GF Impact 0Reclass 2.00 FTE Supv. Fac. Maint toMgr, Maint. Operations $ 32,314Reallocate .55 FTE Mgt. Analyst $ 60,550
($ 392,407)
*Includes salaries and benefits
13
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- General Fund, pp. 190-201 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($44,597)
FY 2011 midyear adjustments to permit and fee revenue – ($40,450)Decrease allocated revenue – ($4,147)
Expense decrease: ($116,679)Increase contract services for maintenance of decorative lights on University Ave. – $20,000 (reimbursed by University Ave. Parking District)
Increase salaries and benefits – $20,750
Eliminate 0.6 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($109,264) vacantEliminate 0.8 FTE Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects – ($141,954) vacantEliminate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate I – ($87,916) vacantReclass 0.8 FTE Spvr Facilities Mgmt to Mgr Main Ops - $12,926Increase personnel benefits costs – $200,000Amendments to the Proposed Budget – $113,015
Decrease allocated charges – ($143,487)
14
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- General Fund, pp. 190-201 (Operating)
Amendments to the Proposed Budget: $113,015
Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist, Add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester – $30,692
Reclassify 0.8 FTE Supervisor, Facilities Management to Manager, Maintenance Operations – $16,156
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Project Manager – ($141,340)
Reallocate 0.55 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $60,550
Move 1.0 FTE Arborist from Planning to PW - $146,957
15
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307
(Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($243,000)
1.5% increase for local CPI changes - $86,000
Increase operating transfer from Vehicle Fund for refund of accumulated
replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $19,000
Decrease operating transfer from General Fund – ($325,000)
One-time transfer in FY 2011 to help fund curb and gutter replacement work related to Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project
Decrease interest income – ($11,000)
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Decrease revenue from untarped load fee due to landfill closure – ($12,000)
16
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307 (Operating); pp. 251-257 (Capital)
Expense decrease: ($371,000)
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $228,000
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund – ($574,000)Final payment of loan in FY 2011; funds were needed to complete San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station
Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($18,000)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($10,000)
Amendments to Proposed Budget – $11,000Decrease operating expense for innovative projects – ($143,000)
Increase CIP for Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements – $143,000
Reallocate 0.1 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $11,000
Public Works Department
Storm Drain Fund
17
$0Not yet budgetedClara Drive SD Improvements
$6.0MBudgeted FY14-17Matadero Pump Station Improvements
$1.0MBudgeted FY12&13Southgate Neighborhood Improvements
$6.4MPh 1 – in process
Ph 2-4 FY12-FY14
Channing Ave/Lincoln
$0.8MCompleteAlma St SD Improvements
$0.7MCompleteGailen Ave/Bibbits Dr SD Improvements
$9.1MCompleteSan Francisquito Ck Pump Station
BudgetStatusProject
Seven capital projects named in 2005 Storm Drain Ballot Measure
Projected revenue from SD Fee increase = $46 million
Projected expenditure on non‐CIP programs = $22 million
Projected expenditure on 7 CIP projects = $24 million
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 251-257 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $2.3 million
Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue SD Improvements – $1.59 million
Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation – $572,000
Amendments to Proposed Budget
Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements – $143,000
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307
20
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($5.5 million)
Increase special revenue from GreenWaste – $0.3 million
Decrease net sales – ($3.7 million)
Reflects expiration of rate increases at the end of September 2011
Decrease disposal fee revenue – ($1.3 million)Decrease operating transfer from Wastewater Collection Fund – ($0.4 million)Decrease operating transfer from Capital Projects Fund – ($0.1 million)
Decrease operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement Fund – ($0.6 million)
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Expense increase: $3.6 million
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $4.4 million
FY 2011 net expense reductions added back – $2.4 million
Decrease GreenWaste hauling contract – ($1.8 million)
Decrease various non-salary expense for solid waste– ($1.0 million)
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.4 million)
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund – ($0.2 million)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($0.1 million)
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Increase contract services for SMaRT Station – $250,000
22
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Expense increase: $3.6 million (continued)
Decrease salaries and benefits– ($75,000)Add 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services – $110,000Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($18,000)Reclassify 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst – ($2,000)Reclassify 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects – $7,000Landfill positions to be removed in December, 20111.0 FTE Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead – ($57,000)
2.0 FTE Heavy Equipment Operator – ($106,000)
3.0 FTE Refuse Disposal Attendant – ($128,000)
Decrease in temporary salaries – ($128,000)
Increase in personnel benefit costs – $217,000
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Reallocate 0.9 FTE Management Analyst to other PW Funds –($99,000)
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 243 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $6.1 million
Landfill closure – $6.1 million
Funded by cash accumulated in prior years
24
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297
Public Works Department
Refuse Fund
25
Overall Goal within 5-10 years:– All rate payer categories pay their actual costs– Full implementation of structural rate changes
• June 2011– Council adoption of FY12 budget (including refuse fund deficit without rate increase)• July 2011– Finalize FY12 plans with FC for expense reductions and recommended rate increase– Council consideration of FY12 plans– Notice rate increase• September 2011– Council adoption of October 2011 rates that fully cover expenses and necessary expense reductions• October 2011– Implementation of 10/1/2011• November 2011– Complete forecasting model and current cost of service analysis• January 2012– Prepare options for new structural changes to rates• July 2012– Implement first of new structural rate changes for FY 2013• Ongoing– Continue to develop forecasting model and ongoing Cost of Service analysis– Achieve +$3 million operating reserve (appox 3 years)26
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY 11 Bill Proposed FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%
Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3% Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 309-317 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $0.5 millionIncrease sales revenue based on estimated flow – $0.4 million
Increase interest income – $0.1 million
Expense decrease: ($2.8 million)Increase salaries and benefits – $0.2 millionAdd 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services –$110,000Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Assistant Plant Manager –$24,000Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC –($22,000)
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist –$11,000
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protection Manager –($34,000)Pay realignment for 3.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations –$19,000Increase operating transfer to Technology Fund – $0.1 million
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($2.4 million)
Decrease chemicals expense – ($0.4 million)Decrease allocated charges – ($0.3 million)
28
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 247-248 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $0
No amounts in FY 2012 budget (funding proposed for FY 2013-16)
Work will continue in FY 2012 for ongoing projects funded in prior years
Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit
Plant Equipment Replacement
29
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 309-317
30
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund
• FRC reviewed a total of 74 underutilized passenger vehicles identified in the audit and during subsequent utilization review.
• FRC recommended 42 vehicles be removed from direct assignment
– 16 will be reassigned to a centralized vehicle pool
– 26 have been removed from fleet inventory
• 23 will have their utilization reviewed again in 12 months
• 9 were left where originally assigned
• These reductions result in annual savings of $53,000 ongoing maintenance costs and avoid $400,000 in capital expense for future replacements
• In FY 2012, FRC will evaluate assigned transport vehicles that exceed minimum utilization requirements.
31
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund – Pending Initiatives
•For completion in FY 2012
– FRC will begin comprehensive review and update of City Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance and Replacement Policy
– Implement fully-automated pool vehicle reservation and key management system by October 2011, installations located at
• MSC Building B
• Civic Center
• Elwell Court
• MSC Building C
32
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund –Initiatives in Progress
– Explore Pool Vehicle Leasing
• FRC considering leasing of automobiles and light duty trucks
– Initial focus to replace vehicles currently in vehicle pool (many of which are more than 10 years old), and police undercover vehicles.
– RFP to be issued Fall 2011
– Advantages to leasing:
• Elimination of capital outlay for vehicle purchases
• Elimination of replacement charges to departments
• Shorter replacement cycles
• More flexibility for adding or removing vehicles from the fleet, or for changing vehicle mix.
33
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund –Initiatives in Progress
– Staff will review the fleet database, and verify data for
accuracy and consistency to assist in future planning and analysis.
– Reorganization of existing parts and supplies inventory
• Review parts locations
• Review stocking levels
• Implement bar-code inventory
• Restore period inventory and analysis
– Staff will coordinate vehicle and equipment purchases with
the City’s Sustainability Coordinator, to insure purchases are made in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Climate Protection Plan.
34
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund, pp. 339-343 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($88,000)
Decrease sale of salvage – ($125,000)
Expense decrease: ($8,000)Increase operating transfer to General Fund for refund of accumulated replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $582,000
Increase operating transfer to Enterprise Funds for refund of accumulated replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $97,000
Decrease operating transfer to Refuse Fund for prior year refund of accumulated replacement charges for landfill and composting equipment that will not be replaced –($591,000)Decrease allocated charges – ($73,000)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($23,000)
Decrease temporary salaries – ($16,000)Decrease personnel benefits costs – ($12,000)Amendment to Proposed BudgetReallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $28,000
35
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund, pp.
265-268 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $0
No amounts in FY 2012 budget (funding proposed for FY 2013-16)
Budget amendments will be made during FY 2012 as needed
Subject to review by the Fleet Review Committee
Projected available fund balance at year-end FY 2012 is $7.5 million
36
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
($1.7)Total Change
1.0Anticipated Pension Increase
(4.3)Public Safety Concessions
1.1Retiree Medical ARC
$0.5Decrease Attrition Savings
(in millions)Salary & Benefits
Non-Departmental
37
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
0.1Innovation Contingency
$2.3Total Change
0.5Allocated Charges
0.5Use of Contingencies – City Manager, Council, Attorney
0.2Contract Services & Interagency Expense
$1.0Funding for OES
(in millions)Non-Salary Expense
Non-Departmental
38
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Council, pp. 69‐70
Revenue: ($105,319)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($105,319)
Expense: $175,871
Increase contract services for CAO evaluations
$30,000
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $145,871
39
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 25, 2011
1
Municipal Fee Schedule
•OVERVIEW
–Overall, relatively minor fee changes
–Pending comprehensive review of cost of
services and fee recovery levels to be
completed for 2013 budget
–Review for Prop 26 compliance
–Additional GF revenue ≤$100K
–Cost/revenue/cost recovery information for
new or modified fees
2
Municipal Fee Schedule
User Fees
–Fee cannot exceed estimated cost but can be set below
full cost recovery level
–Proposition 26 (Nov. 2010) –“No Hidden Taxes”
■Reclassified certain state/local fees as taxes
requiring 2/3rd voter approval
■Numerous exemptions for local governments, i.e.
permits, park/rec. fees, inspection fees
■Segregate new/modified fees from fees set before
Nov. 2010
–Fee study will present options for Council: i.e.
increase fees; reduce level of service;
outsource service; eliminate service
3
Municipal Fee Schedule
•COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
–Facility rental fees
–Organic garden plots
–Jr. museum and zoo
–Aquatics program
4
Municipal Fee Schedule
•PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT
–New fees
■Plan review/inspection for electric vehicle charge station and graywater systems
■Plan review/inspection of wireless facilities
–Development Impact Fees (+4.4%)
–College Terrace
5
Municipal Fee Schedule
•LIBRARY
–New fees
■Room Rental at Downtown
–Delete fees
■Inter-Library Loans
•Amendments to the fee schedule
6
Contracts Greater than $85,000
•Finance Committee review of consultant
services agreements scope of services for the
Capital Improvement Program
•Funding for agreements already included in
the FY 2012 budget
•Final approval of agreements would come
before the City Council with final contracts
7 8
Budget Wrap‐Up
Proposed Budget FY 2012
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve Impact
Mtg Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning Surplus $131
5/5 POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
5/12 CSD Public Art maintenance (15)
5/12 PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
5/12 PCE Return Development Center Transition funding 14
5/24 FIR Return OES funding to BSR 167
5/24 FIR Stanford revenue related to OES program 262
5/24 PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring) 34
Subtotal $433
5/25 CSD Foothill Parking revenue (65)
5/25 NON Civic Center debt service transfer 283
Ending $651
Budget Wrap‐Up
•Needed Finance Committee Action
–Tentative approval of City Clerk’s Office
Budget, cost of minutes $194,000 annual
citywide
–Foothill College Parking at Cubberley –
eliminate revenue $65,000 (CSD)
–Civic Center Debt service –decrease GF
expense $283,000
9
Appendix 9
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1 FIN110503
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
May 3, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Absent:
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, requested a change in the order
of the agenda.
A. City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2011(formerly item
10)
Ian Hagerman, Sr. Performance Auditor, spoke regarding the Quarterly Report
as of March 31, 2011. He gave an overview of the work plan and the status of
the audit recommendations. To date, their revenue of monitoring activities
resulted in more than $14,000 in revenue recoveries from the City. They also
received payments from the Federal Government for $70,000 for alternative
fuel tax credits. They have four projects in process currently. He also went
over the employee turnovers and hires and the awards received by the City
Auditor’s Office.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved seconded by Council Member Schmid that
the Finance Committee approve and forward to the City Council with
2 FIN110503
recommendation for Approval the City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of
March 31, 2011.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
1. Transmittal of 2012General Fund Budget
Chair Scharff discussed how to handle this and subsequent meetings. He
suggested tabling items at approximately 10 p.m. so that meetings did not run
too long. He further suggested they begin subsequent Budget meetings at 6
p.m.
James Keene, City Manager, confirmed that even if they finished items before
the 10 p.m. timeframe, they could not move on to future items since those
items were not noticed or agendized.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, confirmed future Budget
meetings would begin at 6 p.m. versus their usual 7 p.m. start time. He
continued with a PowerPoint slide outlining the six subsequent meetings. He
noted May 25th was the wrap-up meeting as currently scheduled. The Proposed
Budget was scheduled to go to Council on June 13th for review with adoption
scheduled on June 25th. He briefed the Committee on the General Fund
Budget Gap of $2.3 million. In April it was $3.3 million. A million dollars in
reductions across departments has since taken place. Offsetting that decrease
was a non-departmental increase use as a placeholder for the funding of the
Office of Emergency Services. Staff was currently working on a proposal for
Council on what to include in this million dollars. This was a target range for
salary and non-salary expenditures. There was also an increase in the budget
for pension and healthcare costs creating a revised gap of $4.2 million. Staff
was in negotiation with the Firefighters Labor Group, would soon enter in
negotiations with the Police Officers Association, and was in negotiations with
the Police Management Association. A concession target of $4.3 million had
been set for the City where the Proposed Budget was balanced but contingent
on funding for the safety groups with a surplus of $131,000 to the good. He
continued his presentation with the General Fund Overview for the Proposed
Budget with a 3.4% revenue increase, 3% expense increase, $131,000 surplus,
$27.044 million Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) balance which is 18.5% of
the Proposed Budget. The expenses that were being reduced were the
placeholder for the concessions. If they were not received, then the expenses
would increase.
Mr. Keene stated the point was that for fiscal year (FY) 2012, despite the fact
that the revenues have grown, the expenditures have grown faster and were
3 FIN110503
larger than the revenue increases.
Mr. Perez stated not using the reserves was the best policy. The current plan of
$27 million, or 18.5% of the Proposed Budget expenditures was on target. He
had met with Finance Directors in the neighboring counties and discussed their
various approaches. He gave various examples of other counties and what
happened when they used their reserves. They became dependent on loans
from other city funds or drastic funding cuts because of their decisions.
Council Member Shepherd asked why they had not considered using some of
their Budget Stabilization Reserves at this point because the revenues were
starting to pick up.
Mr. Perez stated the approach had been to use reserves for emergencies or
catastrophes and not for the tie-over of a budget process. Having adequate
reserves also improves the City’s credit rating for issuance of debt.
Mr. Keene added the Council had established the reserve policy and a
percentage range for the Budget Stabilization Reserves. They remain within
that 15-20% range.
Mr. Perez continued the presentation with a graph of the General Fund’s Major
Revenues.
Council Member Scharff stated there were long-range deficits. He asked,
without using reserves now, and making structural changes, how they could
manage this.
Mr. Perez stated there was a projected $6.6 million deficit for FY 2013. That
number would change depending on the actual Adopted Budget for 2012 and
whether or not they received the Public Safety concessions. He noted they
would discuss these long-range deficit concerns more throughout the process.
He continued with a pie-chart of the General Fund by type, which charted out
the $146.3 million proposed for FY 2012. He also discussed a graph of the
General Fund Expenditures. Another pie chart dealt with the General Fund
Summary of Appropriations by expenditure category for the $146.2 million
proposed for FY 2012. He discussed the Citywide Budget Summary for the
General Fund and Enterprise Fund. Another chart depicted the Citywide Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) Funding Sources for $72.9 million in total proposed
projects. He discussed the Enterprise Funds Overview including Utilities
increases for Water, Waste Water and Storm Drain. Citywide position changes
were discussed including reductions and layoffs. General Fund Impact of
Citywide Changes were described including personnel benefits increases of $4.3
4 FIN110503
million, allocated charge increases of $542,176 and administrative overhead
charge revenues.
Council Member Schmid discussed the long-term look at revenue sources and
the striking difference between the 1990s and the 2000s. The implication for
the future was that revenue sources and growth in revenue were restricted. A
long-term economic development plan would demonstrate the need to take
care of properties since property and documentary transfer tax is what benefits
Palo Alto. He discussed expenditures and the opposite taking place. Lines were
flat over all departments except Public Safety. He noted that the data showed
there was no funding for City Employee salary increases but there was the $4.3
million increase in benefits. He noted the message there was that the pensions
were taking the money and that employees were getting no real salary
increases. He stated that to reach the balanced budget they depended on
Public Safety concessions.
Mr. Keene stated their recommendation was to balance the budget assuming
they could achieve those savings in the course of the year, but coming back in
the first quarter if they had not received the concessions and present actual
reductions in Public Safety. This may result in the elimination of staffing and
services in Public Safety. He stated they were compelled to do this because
Public Safety costs have almost doubled in the last decade.
Council Member Schmid stated last year the original Budget Proposal had more
cuts than needed. He asked if it were useful or important to identify possible
options in the event that additional cuts had to be made.
Mr. Keene stated they would revise the Public Safety list from the year prior
and identify some possible additional reductions.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated CalPERS did not change their investment return
assumption. He asked for information on the assumptions the City used.
Mr. Perez stated it did not impact the Proposed Budget for FY 2012. The
intention of CalPERS was that it would affect FY 2013. The Long Range
Financial Forecast reflected a $6.6 million deficit but does take into
consideration the decrease from 7.75 percent to 7.50 percent in 2013, which
they will seek direction from Council on whether to reserve 7.75 percent or
assume 7.50 percent in the budget.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated when they get the actual investment returns CalPERS
may not deem them as strong as they would have hoped.
5 FIN110503
Mr. Perez stated revised numbers may be expected in December 2011.
Mr. Keene noted this makes another case for $800,000 that they put in as a
hedge next year for any unforeseen changes.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated they were not de-prioritizing public services but
initiatives and concessions would be necessary for equity across labor groups.
From a community perspective, he noted this continued an added investment in
streamlining services and would be positive for everyone involved.
Mr. Keene agreed this was a good way to look at it. He noted the concession
target number was a realistic number and was achievable.
Vice Mayor Yeh, spoke to the General Fund and Major Revenues. He agreed
with the trend analysis, which Council Member Schmid also mentioned. He
asked how Staff viewed these trends.
Mr. Perez stated these trends were worrisome and the most concern was over
the Utility Users Tax trends where there were significant decreases in telephone
taxes. When they presented the long range forecast they had spoken about
their assumptions on what had driven this, which of course had to do with the
loss of landlines and long distance phone usage plans. He noted in the future it
may be helpful to separate out the telephone and utility budget numbers.
Council Member Shepherd focused on the $4.3 million Personnel Benefit
Increase asking if it was the new trend to have medical retiree benefits exceed
the healthcare benefit for employees.
Mr. Perez stated in FY 2011 they allocated the cost for retiree medical based on
an FTE methodology but it should have been kept at an actuarial methodology.
They should have looked at the current and retired employees. When Staff
reviewed the data there were more General Fund retirees than non General
Fund so they adjusted it to the actuarial methodology. The actuarial study was
last done in January of 2009. The figures they use did not change. It is the 9.7
million. That will change because, by law, they are required to change in June
of 2011. His assumption was that they will see an increase because they have
had a significant number of employees retire. While they eliminated 70+
positions, they also replaced some who left, so they are paying new employees
and retirees. There was an increased cost of medical premiums, and an
adjustment to the methodology. Keeping it at the $9.8 million, the way it was
allocated, the other funds were paying their liability faster. They were not
paying the General Fund liability, but their own fund faster.
6 FIN110503
Mr. Keene stated it could look like the healthcare costs for the current
employees were not growing as fast as for the retirees. They were actually
trying to cover the actuarial costs for the retiree medical for retirees and future
retirees.
Council Member Shepherd asked for a clear explanation of the actuarial.
Mr. Perez stated a study was done to determine the liability, the value of the
benefit, and the money that was set aside for this benefit. The net amount was
calculated for the payments. The cost for current employees and retiree
employees was the same until they reach age 65, and then there was a
reduction in cost for each retiree.
Council Member Shepherd noted this was this the first time that this was
growing faster than their employees.
Mr. Keene stated it was not that the group of retirees was costing them more
than the group of employees. It was because the cost of healthcare was going
up equally for current employees and retires. There was the responsibility to
identify the unfunded liability that they had for the retiree medical and future
retiree costs of current employees in order for sounder actuarial footing for
funding as we go forward.
Council Member Shepherd noted, even though people were not getting salary
increases, they were getting benefits and retirement. She stressed the
importance of making this clear that this is what these funds were used for.
Mr. Keene added the public was just starting to realize this was happening.
They were making a point to address this department by department, noting
the 6-8 percent increase in pension and healthcare that may have otherwise
been a pay increase.
Council Member Shepherd stated it tied together nicely in that it’s 4.3 million
which would balance the budget.
Mr. Perez stated they would get to the total City costs for pensions later in the
discussions.
Council Member Scharff stated they likely could not expect cuts from the Fire
Department, so would they be expecting these from the Police Department.
Mr. Keene stated there were still some limited opportunities in Fire, but a
disproportionate share of the burden would fall on Police.
7 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated they were in binding arbitration with Fire. He
asked if outsourcing options had been reviewed by Staff and how long the
process would be.
Mr. Keene stated they had not looked into this. All efforts had been in
negotiations.
Council Member Scharff asked what the timing would be in implementing bids
for outsourcing.
Mr. Keene stated the outsourcing process was a long and transformative
process, which would take at the minimum a year. The budget was formulated
in the framework of a ten-year forecast. They do not have to be implemented
immediately to be worthwhile. The step they were at currently was to focus on
making agreements.
Council Member Scharff asked of the $4.3 million, how much did they project
should come from Fire.
Mr. Keene stated they did not identify a particular number, but the number
would be larger in Police. It seemed that there was about a 25 percent greater
differential for the funding in place when they were looking for one-year cuts
and needed $600,000 from Fire and $800,000 from Police.
Mr. Perez stated it was $1.8 to $2.0 million.
Council Member Scharff noted the 2012 budget would start on July 1, 2011 and
run to July 1, 2012. They were in binding arbitration until September and had
just started to negotiate with Police. If they were seeking concessions on
salary and benefits, he questioned how that translated if they were six months
into the year before they actually might receive the concession.
Mr. Perez stated if they did not get the full amount in a given year, they could
come back and make other reductions, or make a temporary draw from
reserves until the funding came through.
Mr. Keene stated it was possible to recoup a full year’s cost in negotiations, but
that was more often not the process.
Council Member Scharff noted the real concern in the budget process was
saying they were going to get the money in concessions and then maybe not
getting it. He agreed with Council Member Schmid that it was important to
8 FIN110503
have some backup ideas and plans for funding. He stated a midyear budget
adjustment needed a 2/3 vote from Council.
Mr. Keene cited the options available. When it came to midyear, he stated they
had enough flexibility to provide alternatives, not requiring slashing at other
areas of the City’s Budget. He would not have proposed a Budget that would
do that because he did not think other program areas should be cut.
Council Member Scharff stated they were going to start spending money July 1st
as if they had the $4.2 million in concessions. He raised concerns that they
would borrow against reserves as they started spending the money that they
did not officially have.
Mr. Perez stated given the cyclical trends of spending they should be fine.
Mr. Keene stated they appropriated the funds at the start, but they do not
spend all the money. Next year’s pension money for instance, would not be
spent.
Mr. Perez stated the retiree medical was not spent until the end of the year.
Council Member Scharff also wanted to see some possible alternative ideas in
the event that further cuts were needed midyear.
Council Member Shepherd thought Council’s direction was for equity between
all the units but this one still stood out. She noted the importance of looking at
the structural changes.
2. City Attorney’s Office
Christine Paras, Acting Budget Manager, presented the City Attorney Budget for
Fiscal Year 2012 including City wide changes including revenue at $65,031,
decreases in overhead of $393,519 and expenses decreasing at $10,496. The
0.6 FTE position was eliminated at $67,871.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about additional revenue outside Counsel Services.
Don Larkin Assistant City Attorney did not expect any revenue.
Mr. Keene stated there had always been a target budget for outside Counsel.
Last year, the City Attorney reduced the amount of funding they would have,
even though Council realized if they needed more, they would have to spend it.
9 FIN110503
Vice Mayor Yeh stated with the FTE changes, the claims investigator was gone
but the workload had been assumed by an existing employee.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, agreed. Claims were filed against the City every
day; the Staff duties to process them were consolidated with another
employee.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated they saved $28,000 for that position which was not a
large sum.
Ms. Stump stated she was just starting out in her position and needed to look
at the office programmatically in how it was structured in a comprehensive
manner before she made recommendations for adjustments. However, small
funds were set aside for adjustments midyear with Council’s approval.
Mr. Larkin showed a graph of the trends for outsourcing litigation and the
significant decrease in funds for this. They had not eliminated this fund,
although it was not used last year. The funds remained with the hope that they
would be available for any midyear gap budget needs.
Council Member Schmid stated there were staffing discrepancies between the
organizational chart and the table of organization.
Mr. Larkin stated the reason for this was because the positions were shown in
one place and also listed in another place where they were actually funded.
Council Member Schmid also asked what the criteria were for listing employees
as “senior”.
Mr. Keene stated he did not have a comprehensive answer beyond the
Attorney’s office for this classification.
Mr. Perez stated it reflected the level of the job duties. There have been
requests from Council to reclassify these positions when there has been an
elevation of their duties and responsibilities.
Ms. Stump stated in the City Attorney’s Office it was usually based on years of
service.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd, that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Attorney
Budget.
10 FIN110503
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
3. City Auditor’s Office
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, gave the presentation for the City
Auditor’s Budget. Citywide changes included $39,000 increases; revenue
decreases $204,000, expense decreases of $16,000.
Vice Mayor Yeh questioned if this was related to the Enterprise Fund Auditor.
In the event that technical expertise was necessary, he asked if there was
budget available.
Ian Hagerman, Sr. Performance Auditor stated there were no funds set aside
for that but there was $6,000 available.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the information might be in the SEA report and if there
was any room in the Budget for this.
Mr. Hagerman stated the increase was to capture the geographical comparisons
and some of the other enhancements that they have made in the last few
years.
Council Member Schmid knew that Policy & Services was looking at a hotline
addition to the Auditor’s Office. He asked if this was in the net budget or if
there was further impact to this addition.
Mr. Hagerman stated a third party vendor would administer the hotline.
Current staffing would increase. The cost would be less than $10,000. These
costs were not in the proposal, but they were coming to Council in June with
more on this. It came at modest cost, however.
Mr. Keene stated it was his recollection that the cost was absorbed by the
Auditor’s Office in some way. Council Member Scharff noted other increases
were in benefits and not salaries.
Mr. Hagerman agreed this was the case.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Auditor Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0.
4. City Clerk’s Office.
11 FIN110503
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the budget for the City
Clerk’s Office. City wide changes included increases of $48,000 and expense
increases were $338,000, which included some significant election costs for a
refuse issue.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was reviewing the legality of sharing the costs for this
election process.
Ms. Paras noted the remaining cost increases for the department were $35,000
for Agenda publication and $17,000 in decreased costs from contracting for
Minutes.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the election expenses could be split with the Electric
Fund and the Refuse Fund.
Mr. Perez stated, in the past, the Enterprise Fund picked up the cost if it was of
benefit.
Vice Mayor Yeh spoke on the progress of electronic Agendas and the use of
iPads, and asked if this was reflected in the budget.
Donna Grider, City Clerk, stated it was not reflected in the materials. The
Policy & Services Commission was scheduled to review the project in June
2011.
Mr. Keene stated the costs and savings needed to all be considered. The costs
of the iPads were a capital expense and there were also data charges
associated with them. And there would be significant savings in printing costs.
Vice Mayor Yeh agreed that the cost of the iPads should not be in the budget,
and should be borne by the Council Members.
Council Member Schmid expressed concern regarding the decrease in funding
for the contracting of Minutes. He was a strong advocate for the importance of
minutes and their usefulness in public debate.
Ms. Grider stated she agreed but also mentioned that there was an increase in
the number and the length of meetings with tighter turnaround expectations as
well. All of these factor into bottom line.
12 FIN110503
Council Member Shepherd agreed on the importance of Minutes to Council’s
ability to have an informed discussion. She asked what Minutes the City Clerk’s
Office was responsible for.
Ms. Grider gave additional information on the Minutes process at City Hall. Her
Staff prepares minutes for Council and Standing Committees but not for Boards
or Commissions.
Mr. Keene noted there was no consistent approach to the Minutes or a
centralized processing methodology. He noted the importance of being more
explicit when creating the budget for these.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Policy & Services could look at the hierarchy
of Minutes.
Mr. Keene noted Staff could begin work on this if directed to do so.
Council Member Scharff agreed they needed to bring the Minutes issue back to
the Committee with a detailed cost analysis. He noted there was a varying
quality to the Minutes and agreed Policy & Services should look into the
process. He agreed with Vice Mayor Yeh that the Council Members should pay
for iPads, but it would be understandable for the City to pay for the data plan.
He expressed concern about charging the Refuse and Electric Funds for the
election costs. He said it was a citizen initiative and was not for the benefit of a
specific utility.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee request staff detail the costs of Meeting Minutes and
return to the Finance Committee at the Budget Wrap Up meeting on this and
tentatively approve the City Clerk’s Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
5. City Council’s Budget
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the City Council Budget.
City wide changes showed an increase of $23,000, a decrease in revenue of
$105,000, and an increase in $30,000 of contracted services.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked where the Contingency Fund was housed.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, stated this was under non-
Departmental and the amount was $250,000. The Human Services Resource
13 FIN110503
Allocation Process (HSRAP) administrative costs were the only identified costs
at this point.
Council Member Shepherd asked what HSRAP had to do with this $250,000.
Mr. Perez stated during the HSRAP discussions there was $24-27,000 in
administrative costs that the Finance Committee moved to not reduce. There
was the recommendation to consider using the Council Contingency but Staff
had not made such a recommendation in this proposed budget.
Council Member Schmid stated that revenues had fallen. He did not recall
where any revenues might have come in.
Ms. Paras stated revenues were related to administrative overhead charges.
Council Member Shepherd recognized the fact that Council was getting a raise
from benefits, though they do not get a pension.
Mr. Perez stated they pay into the system. Whether they vest is a separate
issue. If they do not vest, then the amounts are given directly to the
individual.
Council Member Scharff noted they actually made money for the City as Council
Members.
Mr. Perez stated they will return with more information on this.
Mr. Keene stated the allocation model changed each year.
Council Member Scharff agreed that the allocations change and made it difficult
to understand.
Mr. Perez stated it should not change that drastically for Council, but he did see
it change more in other departments with the priorities going forward.
Council Member Scharff spoke regarding salaries and benefits. He asked for
some clarification of the salary and benefits numbers as they were listed.
Mr. Perez stated it was $28,000 for pension and healthcare and $65,000 for
salaries.
14 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated it was just quoted in the paper as $12,000 per
Council Member so it couldn’t be $28,000 in healthcare benefits for all of
Council.
Mr. Perez stated he would check on all of these numbers and get back to the
Committee.
Council Member Shepherd stated in FY 2010 it was $193,000 and asked how it
changed so much.
Mr. Perez stated they recognized they were adding retiree medical costs.
Council Member Shepherd clarified this as they were doing lifetime medical for
those Council Members who had exited.
Mr. Perez stated this was correct.
Council Member Scharff stated they have Council Members who receive lifetime
health insurance and pension benefits. He asked where that is accounted for in
the City Budget.
Mr. Perez stated they were listed by department and are listed under salary and
benefits, specifically under benefits.
Mr. Keene said it was under the ARC distribution. He stated the only thing in
the ARC was the unfunded liability. The actual costs were paid out of the
CalPERS system, and the City made the payments on an annual basis.
Vice Mayor Yeh wanted to also be clear on where these retiree funds show up
on the budget materials.
Mr. Perez stated they were not in the Council Budget materials but in other
departments.
Mr. Keene noted the estimated annual contribution to the fund and the
unfunded liability for retiree medical healthcare was distributed and allocated.
The aggregated charges for any given year was not in the City Council Budget.
The funding costs for the employees today were in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked where this shows up then as an expenditure
item.
15 FIN110503
Mr. Perez stated the complete ARC was distributed through the other
departments.
Mr. Keene stated 800 employees have retired throughout the City.
Mr. Perez stated it began in General Benefits and then allocated out to the
various departments.
Council Member Schmid noted every dime in General Benefits went to one of
the departments so City Council was allocated in there somewhere as well.
Council Member Scharff asked which department bears the burden of funding
the City Council in this allocation scheme.
Mr. Perez stated it was based on a formula, on an FTE basis.
Council Member Scharff stated it was not a transparent way to do this.
Mr. Keene said they could look at it further. He stated the budget was a plan, a
picture of what the costs were.
Council Member Scharff was not sure he could support the Council Budget on a
tentative basis if he could not reconcile the numbers.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would bring back more information on this.
Council Member Schmid stated it was important to allocate it correctly and also
to establish a formula.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
direct Staff to return to the Finance Committee with the actual salaries and
benefits dollar amounts at a future meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
6. City Manager’s Office
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the City Manager’s Office
Budget. The City Wide Changes included $48,000 with $41,000 attributed to
personnel benefit costs increases. Administrative overhead charges increased
by $116,000. There was a decrease in the department of $12,000 for supplies
and general expense. There was a change in FTEs in department for a total
increase of $51,000. There were also changes in administrative support at
16 FIN110503
$13,000 with reallocation and reclassification of positions and employee
additions. There was a proposed Amendment to the Budget to move the
Economic Development Division to the City Manager’s Office, which brought
with it no budget impacts.
Council Member Schmid asked where Economic Development Office currently
sat. He hoped it moved with the notion that it was not a business development
plan but also that it could increase the City’s base revenue in property tax. He
also noted that the City Manager’s Office would be working on the
Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Housing Update this year as well as actively
participating in the Regional Housing Needs Application process.
Mr. Keene stated the department was currently in the Planning Department.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the FTE changes affected administrative support. He
asked what kind of assessment they used to determine the need for changing
this from one level to a higher level.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, stated they wanted to transfer some of
their more administrative clerical tasks to the management analyst.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that went from a halftime to three-quarters position
and therefore a lower benefits load.
Ms. Antil stated they always had a fulltime person, so now they were going to
share an Administrative Associate with the Planning Department with partial
benefits.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what impact the Economic Development Division’s shift
had on administrative support in Planning.
Mr. Keene stated that bringing in the professional Staff person put some
demand on the Support Staff.
Mr. Perez stated the determination was that it would improve customer service.
Council Member Shepherd asked for further clarification on why they moved
Economic Development.
Mr. Keene stated the City Manager’s Office has the job to support every
department. Everything is associated with the City Manager’s office. It is not
separate from the City as a whole. When launching a new program they might
17 FIN110503
pull it into the City Manager’s Office to be able to give it a broader base to
connect to other areas.
Council Member Scharff agreed this was a good move to get it out of planning
and put it in the City Manager’s Office. He also asked if they were still hoping
to hire an Assistant to the City Manager.
Mr. Keene stated they were still in this process but had not done so as of yet.
He noted there was still a need for this position to support the nine council
members. The office supported the constantly changing flux of issues and
needed the extra support.
Ms. Antil stated once the City Manager had that support other Staff could return
to their areas of expertise as they had been helping out until this person was
hired.
Council Member Scharff asked if they had thought about moving to an
Enterprise Fund for the Development Center.
Mr. Keene stated there had been some discussion about this in the past. He
recalled that Council had concerns about it.
Council Member Scharff stated he remembered the discussion as well and
thought it was a good idea to move in that direction.
Council Member Schmid stated people would not likely want to pay fees to get
information.
Mr. Keene noted there was nothing to preclude in a Special Fund, or an
Enterprise Fund, to subsidize a portion of the operations.
Council Member Scharff stated if neighbors came in to inquire on a project, he
did not see a fee being charged. Typically, an Enterprise Fund gave them more
flexibility. He discussed the City basically had full recovery on fees. The reason
he wanted an Enterprise Fund was that they lost revenue and subsequent
services.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Manager Budget
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
7. Human Resources Department Budget
18 FIN110503
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the Human Resources
Department budget. The City Wide Changes totaled $108,000, the
administrative overhead charges increased by $231,000 with one-time expense
decreases of $17,000.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if HR had done any long-term planning for the retiring
baby boomers and what that meant for not only retirement but gaps in
employment.
Sandra Blanch, Interim Human Resources Director, stated Staff had not
completed a big picture analysis but have reviewed employees who are eligible
to retire over the next five years in order to anticipate retirement possibilities.
They had 75 retirements, this fiscal year, which provided restructuring
opportunities.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he would like more information on the outlook of retirees
as well as how they expected to fill the open positions.
Ms. Blanch stated she was very interested in this and working with local
agencies on strategic measures and outlooks.
Mr. Keene noted there was a triage environment for Human Resources right
now with the complexity of labor negotiations. There was the advice and
processing to be done with the logistics when one considers the number of
people leaving and coming into the City’s workforce. He stated there is a lot of
head-down work that has to be done, although they do recognize how
important it is to look forward. They do plan to be more aggressive in filling
positions in this year’s budget process.
Council Member Schmid noted that they have cut back on Risk Management,
Safety, and Worker’s Compensation while increasing in Administration,
Employee and Organizational Development, and HR Systems.
Ms. Blanch stated they have had to redistribute workloads. Support Staff
working in Risk Management will now be supporting employee development and
Benefits.
Council Member Schmid asked if this was a permanent change or temporary.
Ms. Blanch stated this was support work and likely would be temporary.
19 FIN110503
Council Member Shepherd hoped HR would return with more information on
retention and promotion as they begin to fill in spots. She noted the
community was sensitive to saving services strategically from within.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Human Resources Budget and
request Staff return to the Finance Committee with a report about the vacancy
gaps.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
8. Library Department Budget
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, introduced the Library Department
Budget. The City Wide Changes totaled $250,000 in increases. Revenues
decreased by $29,000. The department decreased expenses by $12,115. The
department increased the salary and benefit budget by $53,752.
Council Member Shepherd stated there were some bond-related salary
expenses. She did not see these in the materials. She thought it was costing
them time to work on the library bond, and that this could come out of bond
dollars. She thought they had looked at this.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez stated he knew that the Library
Staff were tracking their time spent on library remodeling. The Finance
Committee could recommend to Council that this be funded with the bond
proceeds.
Mr. Keene stated Council had discussed this before. There were no legal
restrictions on this.
Mr. Perez stated they were seeing some savings in construction costs versus
engineering estimates. This would allow the City to absorb these additional
costs in the bond without issuing more debt. He clarified that bond funds can be
used for project management, engineering, etc., but not for operating
expenses.
Council Member Shepherd asked if we were jeopardizing library hours by
spending time on project management.
Ned Himmel, Interim Library Director, stated they would need to return to
Council when the downtown library opened on July 16th. They were not putting
20 FIN110503
in for an increase in hours, just a movement of Staff between College Terrace
and Downtown.
Council Member Schmid stated it was never too early to start thinking about
libraries and man power, as well as other ways to extend hours with fewer
services or different forms of staffing.
Council Member Scharff stated the more hours the better and agreed they
should look at flexibility in services and staffing. On the bond issue, he asked
when they had people working on the library bond work and what could be
allocated towards the bond, how much time was spent by the actual librarians.
Mr. Himmel stated a team works on it, mainly Public Works. He was there as
well as other staff as they plan furniture, uses and other practical building
logistics. The librarian comes in there as well. In San Jose they had a library
team and a Public Works team, both of whom were paid for by the bond. He
estimated at least 15% of his time is taken up by bond projects.
Council Member Scharff stated if some of that was their time, and the City paid
for that, then they could get money back from the bond funds, which would go
into the General Fund.
Mr. Keene stated they cannot directly use bond dollars on Operations, but they
could have bond monies allocated in different ways.
Council Member Scharff asked if library hours have been affected by managing
this process.
Mr. Himmel stated the hours have not been affected by this. Some of the
programs and some of the offerings have curtailed because of the amount of
time spent on the project.
Mr. Keene noted that these would be entirely new revenues going to new
things. There could be an argument to not make the charge even though it
was legal. It does free up funding that could be used for other projects. This
was going to be for an abbreviated period of time because they will be done
with the projects. Council Member Scharff agreed that was good point, in that
they could not add Staff, because they could not use a short-term revenue
spike to fund a long-term new position.
Mr. Keene agreed, stating that was a practical policy.
21 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated there were good arguments for not charging the
bond for financing. He stated borrowing short-term against the future would be
unwise. He stated they may need to take a vote on whether they should come
back on the issue. He noted he probably would not support it.
Vice Mayor Yeh said that when Council discussed the bond amount they had
also discussed building in a reimbursement for Staff costs for bond
management. What came through was that bids were lower than they
anticipated. He stated it did not necessarily have to go to personnel costs.
They could also use it for one-time purchase of books.
Mr. Keene stated if they went that route they would work it through the
appropriate review and bond oversight committees.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he agreed on the policy side of the issue in that short-
term funding should not go towards long-term costs. He spoke to library hour
flexibility. He saw a shift to hourly for staffing the downtown library. He saw
one fulltime Librarian frozen and how this impacted the reference library. He
was concerned about the interlibrary loan decreases as well.
Mr. Himmel stated delivery of materials from one library to another was not
affected by the drop of the interlibrary loan function. It was dropped because
of the approval of LinkPlus, which makes the interlibrary loan no longer
necessary. He spoke to the need of the Librarian not being as high until the
Main Library opens.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for further clarification of hourly versus FTE employees.
Mr. Himmel stated they did not want to depend on hourly for everything and
they needed the continuity of regular FTE and part-time employees as well.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if a greater level of service was defined as more hours.
Mr. Himmel stated that increasing the hours of the libraries did not necessarily
increase the use of the libraries. (for example: library used to be open on
Friday nights, but didn’t get many patrons.)
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the larger libraries will open up in the next fiscal years.
This was the bridge year for the analysis and community surveying for the
wants of residents and what they would like when it came to hours, staffing and
services.
Mr. Himmel agreed they needed further analyses of hours and staffing.
22 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff asked if they were able to do the pilot programs and
analyses.
Mr. Himmel stated they would be able to do some of analyses, but studying the
hours would be difficult and would not know if the needs of the public was
being fulfilled until after our construction is completed and all libraries are
functioning.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the Library
Department Budget.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee direct Staff to return to the Finance Committee with a
report on using the Library bond proceeds to reimburse project management
costs to the General Fund.
Council Member Shepherd stressed the importance of the City’s goals and that
the library was one of these goals and priorities.
Council Member Schmid agreed with Council Member Scharff that these were
not free funds and they were essentially asking the homeowners to fund this.
He stressed there was a reason why bond funds were meant to be spent on
capital improvments, so he was hesitant to ask homeowners for funding.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2 Scharff, Schmid no
Mr. Perez reviewed the upcoming item: May 5th- Police Department and the
Fire Department, May 12th- Community Services Department and Planning. He
stated they could break what was left of the Agenda over the next upcoming
meeting since they have that extra hour, and Mr. Perez stated he would book
the Technology Fund as well.
9. Administrative Services Department Budget (Continued to May 5, 2011)
i. Technology Fund
ii. Printing and Mailing Fund
iii. General Benefits and Insurance Fund
23 FIN110503
iv. Retiree Health Fund
10. City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2011 (Moved to
Agenda Item A)
Future Meetings and Agendas
Lalo Perez, Director Administrative Services reviewed the Finance Budget
Committee hearings Schedule. May 25th had a room conflict and may have to
be in the City Council Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
1 FIN110505
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 5, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh (arrived at 7:41 p.m.)
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Fire Department Budget
Chair Scharff said discussions would begin with the Fire Department’s budget
and Police Department’s budget to follow.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez gave a recap of the prior meeting
No changes were made to the Council’s contingency, and no changes to the
bottom-line of the General Fund Budget at this point. Staff still owed the
Committee the Council Budget and would be agendized to come back to the
Committee with explanations and changes.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a Power Point presentation of the
Fire Department’s Budget. Citywide changes consisted of personnel benefit
costs and increases in allocated charges of $559,000. Revenue increase was
$746,000 from Stanford Fire Services reimbursement and $232,000 in plan
check fees. The department’s expense increase was $1.3 million. There was an
increase in overtime salaries of $1.2 million, State Emergency $4,000 in the
Medical Technician Certifications fee, and $1,589 in Direct Utility charges. The
2 FIN110505
department’s full-time employee (FTE) change was $127,483 in one-time
expenses. The OES Coordinator and the Deputy Fire Chief position were backfill
positions filled with hourly employees.
Council Member Shepherd said she struggled with the numbers and asked Ms.
Paras to help her get a better understanding on how the numbers totaled.
Ms. Paras said the slides summarized some of the changes on the resources
change table. Council Member Shepherd clarified she was having difficulty
following the breakout on the dollar amounts.
City Manager, James Keene said he would help and walked her through reading
line items in salaries and benefits.
Council Member Shepherd said it would be helpful to have an additional line to
see where the heavy load changes were or an extra column for the overall
breakouts on pages 126 and 127.
Mr. Perez said the document was a living document. The majority of what was
seen on the resource level came as a Council directive and the information could
have been presented in different format.
Council Member Shepherd said the numbers should tell a story on how the City
does business and how funds were managed. It was difficult to focus on figures
and numbers when they needed to be patched together to make sense. She
needed an explanation on what resources level notes meant when they stated
“adjustment include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did
not carry forward”.
Ms. Paras said the note represented mid-year adjustments that were one-time
in nature and not included in the department’s base and subtracted in order to
get the table to reconcile to the net changes. They were adjustments that could
be tied back to a Budget Adjustment Ordinance (BAO).
Council Member Shepherd said the budget was being prepared for 2012 and
asked how the corrections affected the budget.
Mr. Perez said the language was misleading and sounds like corrections. He
said what was being done was comparing the adjusted 2011 budget to the
proposed FY 2012. Changes are made to the 2011 Adopted Budget throughout
the year or at mid- year and needed to reflect the changes for the departments.
Numbers were not plugged in but were changes during mid-year or in budget
amendments. They were one-time in nature for 2011.
3 FIN110505
Council Member Shepherd said she was still having difficulty in totaling the
numbers and needed further assistance at a later time.
Mr. Perez said the confusion might be on how changes were being titled.
Mr. Keene said the budget format had been the same for many years and there
was room for improvement.
Council Member Schmid said when the City Manager presented the budget he
said Staff was looking for $ 4 million from Fire to balance the budget. He said
page 31 showed the long-term trends and expenditures and was clear that the
Public Safety had taken an increased portion of the salary and benefit part of
the total expenditures from the General Fund Budget. It was important to
understand the critical issues. He said on page 37 there were average salaries
and benefits listed and in the first line noted fulltime equivalents that were listed
for the Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA). He assumed they were
uniformed personnel.
Mr. Perez said he believed they were sworn-personnel.
Council Member Schmid went over the numbers and data for fire, emergency,
violent crimes and staffing issues for PAPOA.
Mr. Perez agreed there were rules which drive the staffing numbers.
Mr. Keene stated it was appropriate to discuss and ask questions on these
staffing issues, but may need to bring back more information. He said Police
and Fire calls were different and needed to understand that Stanford pieced into
the equation. He said the budget was not a financial plan but a program and
service plan for the City. It was appropriate for the Committee to ask
programmatic and service questions as part of the study.
Council Member Schmid said there were discussions regarding sharing the
emergency response system and noted equipment needed to be available for
emergencies. He asked if they had information on what neighboring fire
departments were doing as far as shared services.
Mr. Keene said he had seen this earlier about the paradox in California in having
the most innovative and forward business practices and one of the most public
and convoluted public sectors. He said it was necessary to move forward and
rethink past practices as well.
Council Member Schmid asked if there was anything that could happen in this
4 FIN110505
budget year that would have some impact on the 2012 budget.
Mr. Perez said the City Management Staff was working with Fire to see what
they could implement and something in the works as far as cross-staffing a
rescue unit and could possibly come forward this year with savings of $300-
400,000 but was not in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on page 121 of the report on
emergency preparedness and the non-departmental budget.
Mr. Perez stated there was a million dollars set aside under non-departmental
which was not in Police or Fire and recommendations would be included in the
wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid noted the funds were in addition to the department’s
budget.
Mr. Keene said the best way to look at this was that the existing emergency
OES function had resided in the Fire Department with some allocated to Police.
The existing Fire Department had some positions in funding carry forward from
this practice embedded in their budget. They added additional funding in this
non-departmental area and would be discussed during wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid said it was mentioned on page 123 that there would be
a burn at Foothills Park and asked if this was in the budget.
Acting Fire Chief, Dennis Burns stated the burn was in the current budget.
Council Member Schmid asked if the FY 2012 proposed budget included the
expected outcome of negotiations and the $4 million.
Mr. Perez stated this was not in the Fire Department or in the Police
Department. There was no reduction in the budget for the concessions that
they planned for in terms of balancing the budget. They were non-
departmental at this point and a placeholder.
Council Member Schmid asked if the budget was tentatively approved would
they be approving a budget that was $4 million out of line.
Mr. Perez stated it was out of line for the department but not for the General
Fund because there was an offset in the non-departmental.
Mr. Keene stated the budget was a plan of what was possible over the course of
5 FIN110505
the coming year. It had to be balanced in order for adoption but was dynamic
and changing.
Council Member Schmid asked if they could put in a formal request to put non-
departmental budget discussions on their schedule.
Mr. Perez said it would be included in the wrap-up.
Mr. Keene stated that the Committee had previously asked them to identify
actual expenditure reductions in Police and Fire and the possibility of discussing
this further.
Council Member Schmid asked when this would be available.
Mr. Keene stated in a few weeks, but he deferred to Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez stated it would certainly be prior to wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid noted this would either be May 24th or May 25th.
Mr. Perez stated it needed to be before them prior to those dates and looking at
May 12th or 17th.
Chair Scharff said he was confused by the non-departmental budget figures. He
asked if they had $4 million dollars previously lying around or if this was an
accounting gimmick. He was very confused as to what they meant by non-
departmental budget and placeholder. He said the requirement was to have a
balanced budget and how did that work.
Mr. Perez noted it went back to the fact that you make certain assumptions and
recommendations. There would be concessions totaling in the $4.3 million
range.
Mr. Keene stated the $4.3 million was planned for money. The non-
departmental portion of the General Fund Budget existed for many reasons.
They could have a revenue or expenditure because it was not allocated
specifically at the moment, but it was an expenditure made or allocated later in
the year. What was being proposed was not ordinary for this year. There were
options if it was not approved by the Council. They could look for more
revenues and reduce spending by $4.3 rather than making cuts that would
affect Police, Fire and Public Safety.
Chair Scharff agreed innovation was important and he saw no need to cut
6 FIN110505
services. He repeated that Fire had not stepped up in the budget process as
much as Police had, and that the concessions and arbitration piece played a role
in future discussions. He spoke about outsourcing. He asked for information on
the Building Inspection process and staffing.
Mr. Burns noted there were currently five people in Environmental Safety
Management and gave an overview of the employees and their duties.
Mr. Perez discussed the revenues for the inspections pieces of Environmental
Safety Management.
Chair Scharff asked how they were going to close the gap if they could not
agree on minimum staffing or wages and benefits. He wondered if they had
other ideas on how to close the gap. Specifically, they cannot lay off personnel,
and was an overtime issue. If they had to reduce money out of Fire, how could
they do that without cutting services. He said if monies needed to be reduced in
Fire how could that be done without cutting services and again mentioned
outsourcing.
Acting Deputy Chief Catherine Capriles, stated they have been brainstorming
and proposed some cross-staffing to help with overtime. She gave an overview
of the difficulties in understanding the flow of employees
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the training and personnel issues.
Ms. Capriles stated the training position consisted of her, training captains and
line personnel. The truck company was the training company, but they also
responded to calls. Line personnel were doing double-duty.
Chair Scharff talking about whether or not they should have a Public Safety
Directory or hire a Fire Chief.
Mr. Keene stated they were still evaluating this. For the long-term, the
efficiencies in support and administrative backbone were worthwhile and the
ultimate long-term location of the Police and Fire in a Public Safety Building
made sense in the long-run for emergency and disaster preparedness.
Chair Scharff asked if there would be less people in management between the
two groups.
Mr. Keene said it was not clear if this was the case or not. In the short-term he
noted setting up a merger of departments would be a manager-intensive
process, where they likely would not make initial cuts. He further discussed
how the future goal would have cross-departmental and department head
7 FIN110505
communications rather than the separate Police and Fire departments.
Council Member Schmid stated the timing was important on their settlement
process when it came to funding issues. He stated there may be incentives to
postpone and how that could be offset.
Mr. Keene agreed this was a good point.
Council Member Shepherd spoke to page 127 and the notes at the end
regarding the additional funds the Fire department needed to align their
budgeted actual costs. She asked if the department was still coming up short.
Ms. Paras stated the increase in overtime on page 126 of $1.2 million dollars
represented the overtime increases to their base budget. The reason it was
shown as 0.6 million as a reconciled item was that the table needed to tie the
adjusted budget to the proposed budget numbers.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the reduction in contract
services on page 125 for the adjusted budget versus the proposed budget
numbers. She referred to page 126 and the increase in Fire services for
Stanford and asked for clarification on how they worked out these numbers.
Mr. Perez explained the expenditure increases and how Stanford did
reimbursements and how this was adjusted in the budget. He stated they were
open to walking the Committee through this at a later time if it would help to
clarify things prior to wrap-up.
Council Member Shepherd stated the graph on page 131 was alarming which
showed that Fire costs were going up and raised concerns. She asked if Fire
and Police costs would ever even out.
Mr. Perez stated they would never even out at the same level as other areas
and discussed the drivers for these departments and their cost structures.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff, to
postpone a decision on the Fire Department Budget until some allocation
applied to the safety unit and reduction in expenses and ask Fire to come
back with some proposed cuts. He wanted them to also look at outsourcing.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Mr. Perez said he had the answer for Council Member Shepherd’s question on
contract services. The decreases reflected in 2012 were one-time increases in
8 FIN110505
2011 for studies, which were done on a one-time basis, which accounted for
why they did not appear in 2012.
2. Police Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Police
Department’s Budget. Citywide changes for this department were $1,429,346
and included the increase in personnel benefits and allocated charges. Revenue
decreases for the department fell at $136,142 due to elimination of
reimbursement from Utilities for after hours alarm monitoring and other revenue
charges. There was a revenue increase of $39,000 for Animal Services and
reimbursement from Stanford University for communication services. Expense
decreases totaled $115,900 due to the elimination of parking garage security,
funding added from the Track Watch program and a decrease in supply costs.
There was a $8,780 cost increase for the reclassification of 1.0 Full Time
Employee (FTE) in Animal Services.
Council Member Schmid stated it was nice to see the Violent Crime Index was at
the low. He asked what was happening with Palo Alto Animal Services and the
City of Mountain View.
Police Chief, Dennis Burn, stated Animal Services contract with the City of
Mountain View for their services in 1997. Mountain View had been reviewing
leaving Palo Alto due to costs and facilities. The Animal Services Department
was working with them to maintain the contract.
Council Member Schmid stated the allocated charges were up substantially from
2010 by close to $1 million. He asked what caused the increase.
Mr. Perez stated the costs were related to Information Technology (IT)related
issues and vehicle replacement costs.
Council Member Schmid stated the Police Department provided dispatching
services for the City. He asked whether they received funds from the Fire
Department.
Mr. Perez stated yes, there were cost allocations to the Fire Department, the
Utilities Department, and Stanford.
Mr. Burns clarified the Police Department did not charge the Fire Department for
dispatching.
Council Member Schmid asked why the IT Department was charging $1 million
9 FIN110505
to the Police Department.
Mr. Perez stated the $1 million was not solely for the IT services. Staff would
return to the Committee with a complete breakout of the charges.
Chair Scharff asked why Fire is not being charged for this.
Chair Scharff asked why the charges were not allocated in that manner.
Mr. Burns stated he was uncertain.
Mr. Perez stated his understanding was the Fire Department was being charged;
therefore he would research the history and return to the Committee with an
accurate response.
Council Member Schmid asked what happened to the citizen complaints or input
that comes through the Police Department.
Mr. Burns stated the information was classified in a variety of ways. The calls
were categorized as solvable by a conversation with an officer, there was an
informal inquiry report which went into an officer’s personnel file, and the most
formal process was a citizen’s complaint with a full investigation.
Council Member Schmid asked how many minor complaints were received.
Mr. Burns stated the Police Department received 20 to 25 information inquiries
annually.
Mr. Burns stated he did not believe the office time was tracked in that manner.
Council member Schmid asked where the personnel time would appear in the
budget.
Mr. Burns stated a specific location or call for service was tracked clearly.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the Traffic Watch contract was showing
$37,000 and not the full $70,000.
Mr. Burns stated over the past two years they had received consistent donations
although they had dwindled this year.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the amount of $14,000 went to $84,000
under General Expense.
10 FIN110505
Mr. Burns stated they anticipated retirements which led to recruiting costs.
There was an expense associated with the academy, outfitting, and testing.
Acting Assistant Police Chief, Mark Venable stated a portion of the funds were
moved to another account to reflect changes in tax reporting requirements.
Chair Scharff asked if there needed to be budgetary cuts, where did the Chief
see those coming from.
Mr. Burns stated the Staff had been reviewing the structure of the department
to determine where there could be further cuts without compromising the safety
and well being of the community. The restructuring would include cuts at both
the officer and management levels. He noted Dispatch and the front office
support had been reduced by 40 percent and there was no room for further
cuts.
Chair Scharff asked if the Police Department received State funds for
participating in State programs such as the Santa Clara County Avoid the 13
Holiday Campaign and the Click-it-or-Tick-it Campaign.
Mr. Burns stated yes, the funds covered the overtime costs.
Chair Scharff understood it was difficult to cut traffic safety, cross guards,
detectives and other various services. He stated if there was a way to maintain
the same level of service while managing the budget he would consider it.
Council Member Shepherd asked how other municipalities managed their
crossing guards.
Mr. Burns stated in many cases the Police Department or the City paid the costs
and there were areas where the School Districts and the City shared the costs.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City had discussion with the Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) with respect to sharing the costs for
crossing guards.
Mr. Burns stated there had been discussion and the PAUSD was not interested
in a shared cost at the time.
Council Member Yeh asked what the budget impacts would be to the contract
expenses for the parking garage security and with the possibility of the contract
going away or being minimized, would Staff backfill the security.
11 FIN110505
Mr. Venable stated they were able to retain the two officers’ in the downtown
parking area. This was a program they hoped to continue and were receiving
partial reimbursement from the parking permits program.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated although the cost to the City would increase, the benefits
of the increase in the service level to the business district were factored into the
decision to shift to this particular model.
Council Member Scharff stated he had heard from the downtown business
merchants that this had been a shining success.
Vice Mayor Yeh hoped the process in labor negotiations proceeded smoothly and
there were no proposed cuts for school resource officers. He thanked the Police
Department for their thoughtful budget.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Police Department Budget.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Shepherd moved to have Staff return with a
budgeted amount during the Non-Departmental budget night.
Chair Scharff stated he was not opposed to the Amendment, although he felt
there was a strong difference between Police and Fire. His inclination was to
approve the Police budget with the optimistic belief that it would be a
collaborative process in working with the City.
Council Member Shepherd withdrew her Amendment.
Council Member Schmid stated his understood was Staff would return with a list
of the Public Safety issues at an upcoming meeting.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez stated that was correct.
Mr. Keene stated any cuts in Fire and Police would have impacts on public
safety.
Chair Scharff noted the Policy & Services Committee was looking at the Binding
Arbitration issues at an upcoming meeting.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
3. Technology Fund
12 FIN110505
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated in discussions
with the Council and the City Manager he felt strategically there was a clearer
direction with the Information Technology (IT) Division be separated from the
Administrative Services Department. He requested the IT Division be placed
under the City Manager.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Information
Technology (IT) Division including Citywide Changes of personnel benefits cost
increases totaling $361,000 and administrative costs increases totaling $82,000.
Revenue for the Division had a net increase of $154,000 with an increase of IT
support revenue of $839,000 and a decrease in operating transfers from Utilities
Funds $739,000. Full Time Employee (FTE) changes totaled $478,000 resulting
from a correction to the base salary of $327,972, there was a title change and a
compensation adjustment for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) which the net
salary and benefit change was $49,000. There was a reclassification totaling
$22,000 which included salary and benefits and an increase temporary salaries
totaling $79,000 due to the 3 current vacancies.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked to have the base salary for the CIO and the
reclassification to the Administrative position clarified.
Mr. Perez stated when the original salaries were created there was a cost center
inadvertently omitted which had 3 positions. There was not a new expenditure
but rather an omission in 2011 which was being corrected in 2012. He stated
the change in compensation for the CIO was based on a comparison of other
department heads and the goal to align the salary and benefits within the same
range. He clarified the administrative position was being elevated in job
description and responsibility due to the need for supporting a department
head.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the City’s internet
connection services.
Mr. Perez stated there were discussions between the current Internet Service
Provider (ISP) and the City to continue the services. He noted the end result
was to have a formal agreement in place. The current ISP was with a non-profit
organization although they had informed the City internet service was not their
core function. He stated within the discussions there will be costs associated
with the services they were providing and if the costs were higher than expected
Staff would go out for a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Council Member Shepherd asked if there were other agreements within the City
13 FIN110505
that were currently non-contracted that Council should be aware of.
Mr. Perez stated at the present time he was unaware of further agreements in
place.
Councilmember Shepherd asked for clarification on the proposal to develop a
citywide wireless service plan.
City Manager, James Keene stated there had been consultants working with the
Fiber Fund Staff on the overall broadband initiative. He noted there were three
main components; 1) the conversion of cell towers around the City, 2) was
there a link from item 1 to the City’s plan on extending nodes for fiber, and 3)
closing the last mile to the premise through fiber was challenging. He stated he
planned to return to Council within the next 6 months for a detailed discussion.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the new Department of Technology would be
exclusively for the service of City Hall or will it expand into some of the fiber to
the premises and other areas of this type of expertise.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had learned there was a benefit to having central
governance. The vision was that wireless could be a central governance led by
the City Manager.
Mr. Keene stated the need to elevate IT to a departmental status was central for
the City to be able to focus on the range of items needing to be completed.
Council Member Schmid stated his hopes for the type of person being recruited
for the IT Department Director was a person whose ideas were how things could
be changed to better the functions of the City.
Chair Scharff asked if there was a program in place or would there be where the
City would share the cost of upgrading or exchanging a PC to a Mac. He wanted
to ensure the technology expansions came with productivity gains.
Mr. Keene stated technology was the tool and not an answer. He stated he
agreed the City needed to be clear on what they wanted to achieve so they
could create the tools needed.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Technology
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
14 FIN110505
4. Administrative Services Department Budget.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the
Administrative Services Department Budget. She stated the citywide changes
totaling $204,000 from personnel benefits cost increases. Revenue in the
Division was comprised of administrative overhead charges which increased
$440,000, the Full Time Employee (FTE) changes were $17,700 with .2 FTE
added. The Division reduced $39,000 in temporary salaries in the Revenue
Collections Division and reduced overtime by $2,000. She stated in the
Administration Division there was a net increase of $37,000 which was to
reclass the Deputy Director to Assistant Director, the addition of a .1 FTE for a
Senior Analyst position. The Budget Division proposed elevating the Budget
Manager position to a Chief Budget Officer with a net increase I salary and
benefits of $19,000, reclassifying a Senior Financial Analyst to a Budget Officer
with a net increase of $13,000, and the Graphics Designer position was
removed and replaced with an Administrative Associate III.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated once the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC)
completed its work, he asked how the role of the Administrative Services
Department (ASD) would be changed.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated he saw ASD
as having a pivotal role in the infrastructure. He clarified one of the models
being reviewed by the IBRC was similar to the Long-Range Financial Forecast
although with a view that assisted the community in being able to see the
infrastructure from the citizens point of view. ASD touched upon every item that
came through the City that had a financial impact.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated in addition to the shift in structure of ASD he asked
whether there would be more analysis being performed and whether Council
would have a different interaction with the Department.
Mr. Perez stated part of the vision seen by the City Manager was that ASD
would have a different reporting structure for budget and we have to determine
how the community will be a part of that.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated from the Council perspective additional data would enable
the difficult policy decisions. He asked what it meant for SAP to have public
interfacing and as for Accounts Receivable was there going to be automated
payments.
Mr. Perez stated in terms of the collection system, it was internal although Staff
15 FIN110505
was working with SAP and certified partners of SAP to see what else the City
could do with mobile device functionality. He had concerns with the backroom
support structure. He noted if there was a person with a need and Staff was not
able to respond or was overwhelmed with other requests, the challenge is
reduced staffing levels when higher levels were needed for that type of service.
Council Member Schmid asked for names of key persons and their titles on the
organizational chart so he could see how the restructure was going to play out.
Mr. Perez stated David Ramberg and Joe Saccio were his Assistant Directors and
he reiterated he could not run ASD without their assistance. The Accounting
Manager was a critical position to the Department which was currently vacant
although being recruited for and the Chief Budget Officer was critical for the
entire organization as a whole to guide the City Departments in terms of areas
of review and areas of concern.
Council Member Shepherd asked for an update on the Roth Building, Sea Scouts
Building, and the College Terrace Library.
Mr. Perez stated the Roth Building had delays although there was an architect in
place who had developed plans and it was moving in the right direction.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City was spending funds on the
building since it hadn’t been leased yet.
Mr. Perez stated there was a prior Council direction authorizing Staff to spend a
certain amount and Staff was maintaining that range.
Councilmember Shepherd asked what development rights were being
transferred with respect to the College Terrace Library.
Mr. Perez stated there were development rights available to the City for sale. He
requested to return to the Committee with more specific details at a later date.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the structure of ASD compared to last
year.
Mr. Perez said the Budget Manager was a reclassification so there was not a
position being added for the Chief Budget Officer.
Chair Scharff asked why the position was being elevated at a cost of $20,000.
16 FIN110505
Mr. Keene stated the position was under classed and under priced for the
market for what was needed to be recruited.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the promotion of the Deputy Director to
Assistant Director and then there was an Accounting Manager position.
Mr. Perez stated the Deputy Director position was a promotion and the
Accounting Manager retired.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff felt there would be more changes to the ASD
structure.
Mr. Perez stated he felt in light of the budget situation he wanted to get a better
feel for the needs of the Department once the restructuring was completed and
there was more focus prior to requesting additional Staff.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Administrative Services
Department budget.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Printing and
Mailing Fund. She stated Citywide Changes totaled $7,868 with an increase in
personnel benefits cost of $20,000 and a decrease in overhead costs of
$12,000. The expense decreased in the Division was minimal in the amount of
$1,500 for uniforms and FTE changes were decreased by $26,000 for hourly
help.
Chair Scharff asked whether the Utility bills being mailed out were a large
portion of the costs.
Mr. Perez stated the Utility billings were a large portion yes, he noted there was
an effort being made toward automation of the bills.
Chair Scharff stated the City already had automation where a citizen could pay
their bills online.
Mr. Perez corrected himself and stated there was automation although not at
the level required.
Chair Scharff asked whether there had been analysis completed to show the
funds spend on sending out paper utility bills, and if there was a financial
17 FIN110505
incentive to the customers who paid their utility bills online.
Council Member Schmid asked if the customer was paying online were the funds
being paid through the City or through their bank.
Mr. Perez stated there were possibly two connections; 1) to the bank to pay the
bill and 2) to the City if the desired a printed copy of the bill. He noted there
were 8 to 10 percent paying their bills online at the present time.
Council Member Schmid asked whether Staff meant there were 8 to 10 percent
paying online in total or directly to the City.
Mr. Perez clarified 8 to 10 percent utilizing the City direct online system not the
total online bill payers.
Chair Scharff noted there was more billing and account information available to
customers online than in the paper bill.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Printing and Mailing Fund and
for Staff to return to Council with a plan towards moving customers off of paper
billings by the next budget season.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would need to review the legal impacts from Proposition
218 prior to moving forward with the requested Motion.
Chair Scharff stated there were possible utilities regulations which stated a
paper bill must still go out.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez stated the next discussion was the General Benefit Fund and he noted
there were significant increases with a 16 percent increase or $5.5 million
citywide. The process was to allocate all the costs into the General Benefit
Funds and then allocated it out to departments. The $5.5 million was comprised
of $4.2 million in additional Pension costs and $1.3 in additional Healthcare
costs. He stated the assumptions made for the healthcare was a 10 percent
increase, although Staff would not know what the exact increase will be for the
second half of the fiscal year 2012 until later this year. Staff had concern with
the increase in the pension costs projected by California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS).
Mr. Keene stated for Fiscal Year 2012 the City was paying less than 100 percent
18 FIN110505
of the healthcare costs and employees paying some of the costs. He asked the
amount that would need to be added to the adopted 2012 budget to be at 100
percent. He stated in actuality if the 90/10 program had not been put into place
the 9.8 percent increase for 2012 would have been higher.
Mr. Perez stated the savings was in the $300 thousand to $350 thousand range.
He stated the General Benefit Fund was separated from the Worker’s
Compensation Fund and the General Liability Fund. He stated the 5 year
average for the Workers Compensation payout was approximately a $1.7 million
and the General Liability average payout was $954 thousand for the same 5
year average.
Council Member Shepherd stated in each of the Funds there was a category
“other income” of $3 million. She asked for clarification on what the amount
was.
Mr. Perez stated that amount was the outgoing charges to departments. He
stated Staff would re-title the categories for transparency.
Council Member Shepherd asked where the dollar amount shown for medical
costs in the Long Range Financial Forecast came from.
Mr. Perez stated there was a Council direction to use a 10 percent increase.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff felt the insurance company might
consider bundling the multiple types of insurance the City carried.
Mr. Keene stated he agreed there would be benefit to bundle the items although
he felt it would not be an option.
Council Member Schmid stated the City was offering employees zero percent
salary increases yet increasing the benefit payments by $5.5 million. He
requested Staff provide Council with the CalPERS investment portfolio, a risk
assessment, and review of the 401C3 options.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he felt separating the Funds was a positive step to be
able to track trends and perform analysis on them individually. He asked in
separating them out what if anything had been noticed that may not have been
while they were combined.
Mr. Perez stated it was too soon to see if there were issues individually but as
the trends were calculated more information would be easier to follow.
19 FIN110505
Council Member Yeh asked what was feasible in terms of retirement options for
the employee participation within the retirement systems.
Mr. Perez stated Palo Alto was a leader in what other municipalities were doing
with retirement and pensions. He stated the City of San Diego gave an incentive
to non safety employees of a 2.5 percent at 65. He stated there were options in
changing the structure and CalPERS was currently working on 3 to choose from.
Staff was bringing the information to Council with the updated actuarial report.
Chair Scharff requested a breakdown of medical, dental and vision costs.
Mr. Perez explained on page 87 of the budget book there was a breakdown of
the costs.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the General Benefit Fund, the
Worker’s Compensation Fund, and the General Liability Fund.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved that Staff will return with
information gathered from CalPERS and other communities around the State
who were taking initiatives.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
The next item is consideration of the Retiree Medical Fund. Mr. Perez stated the
actuarial required contribution was $9.8 million for Fiscal Year 2012. He stated
the revised actuarial study would be completed in the fall of 2011.
Council Member Schmid stated a number of accounting agencies had raised
questions regarding the valuations in the retiree health benefits.
Mr. Perez stated he had not heard those questions; however, valuation
methodologies would be discussed with the actuary in the upcoming review.
Council Member Yeh stated if there were concerns if would be helpful to know if
there was a methodology challenge with the GASB 45, absent that he felt it was
good practice to contribute to the unfunded liability.
Mr. Perez stated the funds which had been placed in the Trust was now positive.
20 FIN110505
Chair Scharff stated the Trust was irrevocable which was of benefit to the
employees. He stated he was uncomfortable with a place holder that is not real
money; although the Trust was an actual location where there could be a place
holder with real funds.
Mr. Perez noted included in the $9.7 million the amount for the current retirees
so therefore once that obligation had been taken care of the remainder of the
funds could be a place holder for the $4.2 million.
Council Member Schmid stated the City is underestimating their obligations to
retirees and he is not in favor of a placeholder because this is something we
have to pay for.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Retiree Health Benefits
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez confirmed the Committee approved the requested additional $50,000
for the Animal Services study which changed the bottom line to an excess
balance of $81,000.
Chair Scharff stated he was uncomfortable with the notion of there being an
$81,000 excess with a $4.3 million deficit.
Mr. Keene agreed and stated it needed to be clear that without concessions
from public safety we can’t have balanced budgets off into the future. He noted
Binding Arbitration restructures the timeline on the decisions Council could
make. He indicated we have to receive these savings from public safety as they
comprise the largest portion of our personnel costs in the General Fund and the
most rapidly escalating area of cost.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted he would be out of town during the next budget meeting.
Future Meetings:
-May 12th – Community Services Department Budget and Planning and
Community Environment Budget
-May 17th – Utilities Department and the General Fund
-May 24th – General Fund Enterprise Fund and the Internal Funds
-May 25th – Non-Departmental and Wrap-up
-Asked about meeting on July 5th or an alternative date of June 28th
21 FIN110505
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh
1. Oral Communications
None.
2. Community Services Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a brief presentation regarding the
Community Services Department (CSD) proposed budget. She explained CSD
had a revenue decrease of $112,583 made up of a reduction in golf course
green fees, an increase in middle school athletics and recreational camps, and a
decrease in class program revenue. The changes in salary, benefits and Full
Time Employees (FTE) totaling an increase of $624,690 was made up from a
half FTE position freeze, the elimination of a half FTE coordinator from the
Family Resources Center (FRC), the elimination of 0.48 hourly FTE at the
Cubberley and Lucie Stern Centers, and the addition of 1.02 hourly FTE for
athletics programs and camps. There was an increase in personnel and benefits
costs totaling $703,000 due to pension and health care increases. She stated
there was a decrease in expenses of $97,449 from the reduction in Vehicle
Fund charges, an increase in bank service charges for credit card usage, an
increase in Public Art for artwork maintenance, a reduction in water
consumption for turf, and an increase in middle school athletic supplies and
materials.
Mr. Perez stated there were two approvals given by Council, one is for the Staff
positions and the second was for budget. Staff was requesting to maintain the
budget funding for the position temporarily reduced due to the Art Center
construction.
2
Ms. Paras stated the second amendment to the proposed budget was a
discussion where initially CSD proposed charging the 2.5 percent
administrative fees against the Human Services Resource Allocation Plan
(HSRAP) grant funding. An alternative option would be to fund the $27,761 in
administrative fees by using Council Contingency monies.
Council Member Schmid stated with the new division the department appeared
to have 8 service areas with 8 workers in each area thereby providing direct
services to the community. He stated the parks seemed to be the highest usage
of the areas serviced. He asked how the community responded to the eight
areas providing services.
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts stated CSD was
attempting to breakdown the silos in the programs in order to achieve synergy
for all of the programs. He stated that included the Open Space areas as well.
Council Member Schmid noted he was struck by the percentage of citizens who
rated the parks very high compared to the surrounding communities’ facilities.
He encouraged CSD to participate in the bicycle and pedestrian pathways
project. He stated the City supplied funding to support the school fields and
facilities and in exchange the schools remain open for public usage of fields for
summers and weekends. He asked where that expense was located in the
budget.
Mr. Betts stated the City has a long standing agreement with the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) for the maintenance of fields for 13 elementary
schools, 2 middle schools and Terman Park. The fields cost was shared on a
50/50 shared split with the PAUSD, in exchange for citizen usage during the
evenings and weekend for sports activities. The City had a role in brokering the
activities at the fields with shared revenue 50/50. The share had changed to
the City receiving 60 percent of revenue to offset the brokering time.
Council Member Schmid stated the City took on the responsibility for the
brokering.
Mr. Betts stated that was correct.
Council Member Schmid asked who performed the maintenance on the fields.
Mr. Betts stated the maintenance was performed by City Staff.
Council Member Schmid asked whether their time was part of the 50/50 split.
Mr. Betts stated yes. He stated approximately a year and a half ago as a cost
saving measure, the City gave the responsibility to the PAUSD for Capital
Improvements.
3
Council Member Schmid stated Cubberley was not mentioned. He asked for
clarification that the City leased the Cubberley fields from the PAUSD.
Mr. Betts stated that was correct and the City maintained and brokered the
fields directly.
Council Member Schmid stated the PAUSD paid 100 percent for those fields.
Mr. Betts stated no, the City paid 100 percent for the fields.
Council Member Shepherd acknowledged the reduction in an FTE for the Family
Resource Center (FRC). She asked why the reduction in Staff.
Mr. Betts stated the Council adopted a policy clarifying the FRC would be
responsible to pay the full cost for the FTE at approximately $96,000. It was
agreed that if through fund raising the FRC was unable to achieve the full cost
for the position, the City would loan the FRC the funds to be paid the following
year. He stated in 2010 the FRC requested the FTE be reduced to half-time due
to the inability to raise the funding to support the position.
Mr. Perez clarified in 2008 Council had approved to loan the FRC additional
funds necessary to maintain the position although currently the loan amount
exceeded $100,000.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City was clearing the loan.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the City was not collecting on the loan.
Council Member Shepherd commented on the cost of credit card processing.
Mr. Betts stated Staff was reviewing options on reducing the overhead bank
costs by using programs such a Bling and innovative ideas of trying to
encourage people who leave a program to maintain their balance rather than
request a refund to use for other classes.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there was an expected increase in
golf rounds above the 65,000 in 2011.
Division Manager for Parks & Recreation, Rob De Geus stated the golf course
continued to be a challenge, the rounds were tracked weekly. The goal was to
achieve the 70,000 round or higher. The senior population had increased and
there was a junior golf program increasing.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the 67,000 was a realistic goal
number for 2011.
4
Mr. De Geus stated it was a stretch goal.
Council Member Shepherd it would be helpful if Cubberley became a stand-
alone program.
Mr. Betts stated the Cubberley Center was part of the Recreation Division. Since
the reorganization, Staff was working on a better use of janitorial Staff with all
of the Community Centers.
Mr. De Geus stated there was definitely overlap in management in Cubberley,
Mitchell Park, and Lucie Stern Community Centers. Staff felt there was synergy
and savings in maintaining the two sites together.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether it was possible to receive a stand
alone profit and loss statement for Cubberley. She stated there were significant
considerations on the horizon concerning Cubberley and being able to see true
numbers would be beneficial in making clear decisions.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was preparing a total view for Council with respect to
Cubberley with inclusion of the leases, the covenant not to develop, the
expenditures for the maintenance budget, the revenues, and the net numbers
for the operations as a whole.
Council Member Shepherd asked how difficult it would be to start the separation
with Cubberley now then bring in Mitchell Park as a subtotal in the same type of
profit and loss scenario for the budget purposes.
Mr. Perez stated the Cubberley scenario needed to be completed. The
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee had requested Staff provide them with
the revenue, expenditure and net income for the City’s assets; and the policy
decisions for the rent rates. He anticipated Cubberley being the lead on all of
that information.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was too difficult to incorporate those
numbers into a stand alone facility for the final budget process in 2012/13.
Mr. Perez requested time to discuss it with Staff and determine what they could
come up with for the June 13, 2011 packet.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was consideration whether Cubberley
and Council should have the information for review before the need to decide.
Mr. Perez stated in the past Staff presented the whole picture although the
financial scenario was frequently negative and Council stated there was no need
5
to continue. He stated Staff would compile the information and present it to the
Council.
Council Member Shepherd asked once the Golf Division merged with the Parks
Division how would the rounds be tracked.
Mr. Perez stated the golf division had a separate financial view and it was
planned to continue the financials in that manner.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to have
the HSRAP administration funding matter placed into the parking lot. The
financial burden should not be taken out of the Council Contingency Fund.
Council Member Schmid stated his original notion was to place the above as
Council Contingency. He felt the 2011 year was particularly rough on the
service areas. Budget cuts were being faced at the County, State, and Federal
levels and they were receiving push back in raising funds. In light of this
extraordinary situation where the funding amount being given to HSRAP has
not increased, it would be better to take it from the Council Contingency thus
marking it as a one time expense rather than a part of the budget.
Chair Scharff stated given the extraordinary financial times this would be a one
time give-away then in 2012 the City would return to charging HSRAP the 2.5
percent.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding was at Mid-Year HSRAP would
be coming to Council with their strategic plan for funding for their future.
Council Member Shepherd stated the City reduced HSRAP funding by 17
percent and she noted this program would always cost the City money. She did
not see the connection to the Council Contingency.
Mr. Betts stated the $27,000 was the operating expense for the entire Human
Services programs not just HSRAP.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding was 2011 was the first time
the City was identifying the administrative costs. The question was how to deal
with the costs over the long run. He felt CSD had been under pressure to cut
their budget in order to assist CSD in providing services it would be best to
have the Council absorb some of the costs.
Mr. Perez stated Council Member Schmid felt if the funds were to come from
the Budget Stabilization Reserve it was presumed on-going funding, as opposed
to the Council Contingency where it would be a one time funding.
6
Council Member Shepherd stated by adding the HSRAP funding into the Budget
Stabilization Reserve Council was removing the burden from the CSD budget.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification that the HSRAP funding would come from
the Budget Stabilization Reserve. His understanding from the City Manager was
there was a $120,000 in budget surplus. Therefore that is where the funding
would come from.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct, the point he was making was the amount
going to the Budget Stabilization Reserve would be reduced by the amount
coming out of the budget surplus.
Chair Scharff restated his understanding as Council Member Schmid felt the
HSRAP matter should return to Council and they should review whether there
should be a 2.5 percent charge next year.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding from Staff was HSRAP would
be reviewed strategically at Mid-Year for what amounts were funded and to
which programs.
Mr. Betts stated that was Staff’s anticipation.
Chair Scharff withdrew his second.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to take
the administrative funding for the HSRAP program from the Council
Contingency Fund for the 2012 Fiscal Year, have Staff return to Council at Mid-
Year with a strategic plan and have Council determine whether or not to
continue to fund the program with a 2.5 percent charge.
MOTION PASSSED: 2-1 Council Member Shepherd no, Vice Mayor Yeh absent
Chair Scharff stated he noticed the large increase in bank charges and
encouraged Staff to review the possibility of charging a fee to use a credit card.
Mr. Betts stated Staff had been trying to encourage the customers to register
for classes and make on-line reservations which were available 24/7, it was
convenient and at the same time it reduced the amount of overhead. He
agreed the service charge for bank fees were quite high.
Chair Scharff stated there was a high level of competition in the community for
camps, and the City had to expend funds to market the Parks & Recreation
camps. He asked whether it was beneficial to the City to offer the camps.
7
Mr. Betts stated many of the camps were break even or cost recovery.
Chair Scharff asked whether all of them were in that category.
Mr. Betts stated no. There were some programs in advanced aquatics with full
cost recovery with an entry level swim class that was subsidized. Many of the
art, science, and Children’s Theatre classes were cost recovery with a
therapeutics camp for handicapped children which required high levels of
Staffing so that camp would be subsidized.
Chair Scharff asked what portion of the $444,820 of the HSRAP funding was for
the Palo Alto Child Care subsidy, where the rest of the funding went, who it
subsidized and how it worked.
Mr. Perez stated there were two areas of operation; child care and senior
services. Some time ago it was decided to form Private/Public Partnerships and
Council at that time made policy to fund the programs. He was uncertain of the
total percentage of the City budget that went to the programs. The programs
were located in various sites and some of the sites were leased to house those
programs.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation the City did not charge a rent fee to those
programs.
Mr. Perez stated it was more than a dollar although it was not up to market
rate.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the elementary school portable rental
space was a part of the covenant with the PAUSD for paying for the child care
on the elementary school campuses.
Mr. Perez stated yes, there was a portion for the elementary schools but he did
not have the exact numbers with him.
Supervisor of Recreational Programs, Minka van der Zwaag, stated the HSRAP
money for childcare was always around the range of $401,000.The majority of
the funding was for childcare subsidies and a portion was for the Palo Alto City
Child Care (PACCC) Coordinator. The youth that received the subsidies from the
City of Palo Alto were in the pre-school program and the after school program.
PACCC had a pass through grant from the State of California, Department of
Education and those monies went to the PAUSD. PACCC administers those
funds for the PAUSD.
Chair Scharff stated the City HSRAP dollars equaled $1.1 million so the
$444,820 was not all HSRAP money. A portion of the Avenidas money and a
portion of the child care monies were not HSRAP monies.
8
Ms. van der Zwaag stated approximately $800,000 of the HSRAP funds went to
PACCC and Avenidas and the remainder went to twelve other smaller agencies
that receive smaller grants from the City. The City had chosen PACCC as the
provider for the after school care on all of the elementary school sites except
for one.
Chair Scharff stated there was $7,800 listed under the recreation and golf
special events. He asked what special event and what entry fees were being
referred to.
Senior Management Analyst, Lam Do stated the entry fees were revenue the
City received for the sales at the event such as tasting kits at the chili cook off.
Other events include the May Fete parade, the Moonlight Run, the Chili Cook
Off, and there were various one time events which were all considered special
events.
Chair Scharff reiterated Council Member Shepherd’s desire to see a Cubberley
break out.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would prioritize the Cubberley matter.
Chair Scharff stated he had heard the City was not maintaining its art due to a
lack of available funds. He stated the proposed budget was requesting $35,000;
although the Public Art Commission had mentioned the restoration and
maintenance costs were upwards of $60,000 to set-up an ongoing maintenance
program to ensure the upkeep.
Management Specialist, Elise DeMarzo stated the last time a condition check
was performed on the art work was in 1998. Restoration tended to run between
the $10,000 to $13,000 range. She noted there were other pieces in the
collection that needed cleaning, waxing and preventative maintenance to
prevent the deterioration to such an expensive stage of restoration within the
next few years.
Chair Scharff stated his understanding was the $35,000 would address the
most deteriorated works but would not prevent the other works from
deterioration.
Ms. DeMarzo stated the $35,000 would address the pieces in most dire need in
restoration and may be able to touch up a couple of the others.
Chair Scharff asked if it was a fair statement to say an additional $15,000
annually would maintain the artwork and help with the preventative
maintenance.
9
Ms. DeMarzo stated yes, having the art work waxed and sealed would prevent
further sun and water deterioration.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
increase the budget by an additional $15,000 for ongoing regular maintenance
of public art to prevent the pieces from deterioration.
Council Member Shepherd stated in 2010 there was money budgeted, she
asked if the funds were used for the purpose of artwork restoration or
maintenance.
Ms. DeMarzo stated in 2010 there was no money set aside for maintenance.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the $35,000 was a new item and was being
requested as on-going.
Mr. Perez stated yes, Staff was requesting it be approved as on-going and it
become part of the base cost to the budget.
Council Member Shepherd did not support the Motion.
Chair Scharff stated the argument was the $35,000 was setting up the art
maintenance program that would not be addressing the problem. It would be
less expensive to spend the funding now to maintain the artwork rather than to
spend less now. He stated there needed to be a realistic cost built into the art
program for maintenance.
Council Member Schmid asked Staff where the $35,000 amount originated from
and where the funds would be spent.
Ms. DeMarzo stated a few of the most recent restoration pieces ran $12,000, in
the courtyard the piece needed to be moved which was estimated between $9
to $13,000 and there were a number of other works that needed restoration.
MOTION PASSED: 2 -1 Council Member Shepherd no, Vice Mayor Yeh absent
Chair Scharff stated he had questions regarding the municipal golf course
potable water issue. He recalled the matter was discussed in 2010 and the
salinity in the recycled water was too high where Council passed a policy on a
certain number of parts per million of salt. He asked what the possibility was
and how this related to the policy.
Mr. De Geus stated yes, there was a policy in place. The Water Treatment Plant
personnel were more familiar with the particulars of the policy. The salt content
was regularly monitored by the Treatment Plant.
10
Chair Scharff stated his concern was once there was salt put in the ground it
was not removable. He needed to ensure in saving money there was not an
environmental error being created.
Mr. De Geus stated there needed to be a balance between reclaimed water
versus potable water that did not compromise the groundwater.
Chair Scharff asked what the balance was.
Mr. De Geus stated at present it was a mix of 70 percent reclaimed and 30
percent potable; the goal was to go to reach an 80/20 split.
Chair Scharff asked where the 80/20 split left the salt content.
Mr. De Geus stated he was uncertain at this time.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff could retrieve the information and return to the
Committee.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would meet to gain a definitive amount of parts per
million at the next meeting.
Council Member Schmid believed the salinity percentage discussion arose
during the compost activity discussions.
Mr. De Geus added the goal or focus was to reduce water usage and allow
natural Baylands grasses.
Mr. Keene added reclaimed water was used on golf courses throughout the
Country. He stated when Staff returns with the comparisons, Mountain View
would be one because they used reclaimed water from the Water Quality
Treatment Plant on their golf courses.
Chair Scharff stated he understood the City was saving $25,000 on water by
not watering areas of Foothill Park which would cause the grass to turn brown
during the summer. He asked whether the community was aware of the plans
for the park and what was their reaction.
Mr. Betts stated no, there was no outreach completed. He stated there was
research being completed for where the water usage would be reduced. The
irrigation system at the Foothills Park was improved 15 years ago. He noted
prior to the irrigation system upgrades there were areas of the park which were
browner so essentially using less water would put these areas back to where
the community had it prior to the upgrades.
11
Open Space and Park Division Manager, Daren Anderson stated Staff was
targeting the water usage area of the upper turf with a 50 percent reduction.
He stated there was no way to know the time as to how fast the turf would turn
brown.
Chair Scharff stated the landscape by the Interpretive Center would remain
green.
Mr. Anderson stated yes, the high active areas would maintain the present
water usage.
Chair Scharff stated he had concerns with saving a small amount of money
where it had a large impact to the community.
Mr. Anderson stated there may be brown grass at the entrance of the park.
Mr. Betts stated the expectation of every area in CSD has been reviewed and
Staff brought as many options to review as possible.
Chair Scharff stated CSD contributed greatly in terms of bringing up suggested
cuts.
Council Member Shepherd mentioned she was aware Project Safety Net had
been taking a large portion of Staff time and she asked for an estimation of the
amount of Staff time the project was taking.
Mr. Betts stated Staff hoped some funding from the Stanford Development
Agreement could be used towards the Teen Wellness and Health program.
Mr. De Geus stated there had been huge financial support from the community
for the program. He felt CSD played a unique role and it was a good use of time
although it was not sustainable without some dedicated resources. There was a
blueprint in process for how to sustain the program for its longevity.
Council Member Shepherd asked Mr. De Geus how much of a percentage of his
time or the Staff’s time had been taken by the program.
Mr. De Geus stated he had no numbers to reflect the time spent. He felt
passionately about the program and the work being done. He reflected
spending evenings and weekends on the project equated to 15 to 20 percent of
his time on a weekly basis.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there were issues not being
addressed in CSD that may need temporary assistance until there was a
sustainable plan in place.
12
Mr. Betts stated the cost it would take in administrative support time would be
in the $25,000 range. Some of the support of Human Services was taken out of
the program and Staff identified a shortfall in services so Staff was now
attempting to fill those needs with the $27,000 spoken of earlier in the
meeting.
Mr. De Geus stated CSD had tremendous Staff and they did an outstanding job
even with a reduction in Staffing from 95 to 75 in 2010. He stated one of the
challenges was managing the community centers operations.
Mr. Keene stated Staff was invested in the Project Safety Net Program. He
clarified at the current level of investment the program was not sustainable.
The need for skilled and highly committed persons was more important than
funding.
Council Member Shepherd wanted Cubberley to be looked at through a
microscope to see where there could be improvements and how the community
at Cubberley could assist in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked why CSD allocated charges were much higher
than any other department.
Ms. Paras stated $1.5 million of the allocated charges were from water sales.
Mr. Perez clarified the cost for water was for the parks, golf course and various
facilities.
Council Member Schmid asked if that accounted for 30 percent of the charges.
Ms. Paras stated there was a $0.2 million for vehicle replacement allocation
which was for use of the City vehicle fleet.
Council Member Schmid stated he was under the impression a number of the
maintenance efforts were contracted out. He asked why it was showing as an
allocated charge.
Mr. Perez stated there was a reduced vehicle use for parks and golf
maintenance; although there was vehicle use for other operations.
Ms. Paras stated the remainder of the charges were IT related, general liability
insurance, and a vehicle equipment maintenance service charge of $0.3 million.
The charge for the general liability insurance was $0.1 million.
Council Member Schmid stated it seemed the $0.3 million, $0.2 million and
such did not add up to the full amount of the allocation shown and it was still
larger than any other department.
13
Mr. Perez stated there was a standard formula used for computers based on the
number of FTE’s. There could be positions in CSD that did not have computers
so there could be some element of over charge.
Chair Scharff stated CSD was being charged $0.5 million for vehicles, and $0.3
million for use of the vehicles.
Mr. Perez stated the vehicle allocation was based on the actual number of
vehicles assigned and maintained by the department.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff had reviewed the vehicle portion and whether
CSD needed all of the vehicles in use.
Mr. Betts stated yes, CSD had reviewed the vehicle usage carefully and noted
the Parks Division was able to reduce four vehicles and the arts and sciences
division was going to a car pooling type of usage. He stated there were a few
vehicles that did not receive a large number of miles although the larger
vehicles were essential for the Open Space Division.
Chair Scharff asked whether the larger equipment vehicles were used daily.
Mr. Betts stated yes, they maintained low mileage with a high frequency of use.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to
tentatively approve the CSD budget as amended.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
Mr. Perez asked the Finance Committee to include the .5 FTE back into the
Table of Organization and the budget since it was only temporarily being
removed due to the construction on the Art Center.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to
correct the .5 FTE back into the budget and the Table of Organization.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification that the money was already
budgeted for the position.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the goal was to ensure when the Director of CSD was in
need of the position it was still available on the Table of Organization.
Council Member Shepherd stated the funding was cut, but Staff’s request was
to maintain the position.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
14
2. Planning and Community Environment Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a brief presentation regarding the
Planning and Community Environment proposed budget. Planning had a
revenue increase of $737,000 due to an increase in volume of various permits
and planning revenues. She stated there were FTE changes in the amount of
$237,748 with a net decrease in a .57 FTE, and a .5 allocation from the City
Manager’s office; there was an elimination of 1 FTE which will be discussed later
as an amendment to the proposed budget. She stated the expenses for the
department were increased by a net $196,758; most of the expenses were due
to the renovations of the Development Center. Allocated charges increased by
$50,000 which were primarily IT related. The department was proposing
transition plan funding of $300,000 to facilitate the restructuring of the
Development Center; since the plan was being developed while the budget
process was underway the detail of the expenses were not included in the
proposed budget. The Development Center transition proposal anticipated
eliminating the Chief Planning and Transportation Official and adding an
Assistant Director, the net salary and benefit change was an increase of
$28,000. There was a request to reinstate the Administrative Associate II of 1.0
FTE which would draw down on the transition funding totaling with salary and
benefits of $95,000. There were two planned amendments to the proposed
budget; 1) $110,000 was for a rail corridor study and 2) the refund of the
remaining Development Center transition funds in the amount of $14,000.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated when the
document was prepared there was a $300,000 placeholder in the Planning
Department budget which was for the Development Center project and Staff
was indicating the cost was now $285,769. He also noted in the original
proposal a reduction or elimination of an Administrative Associate II from the
Planning Department had now been altered as a transition position to fill a need
for administrative support at the Development Center.
Ms. Paras stated the At-Places memo outlined the FTE transitions and changes
explained by Mr. Perez.
Council Member Shepherd stated the $110,000 for the Rail Corridor Study had
previously been approved by Council; she asked why it was returning as a
budget item.
Ms. Paras stated that was correct, the item had been approved although the
figure had not been added into the department budget at the time.
Council Member Shepherd asked when Staff felt the planning strategy for the
Development Center would be completed.
15
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated there
had been a pilot program begun at the Development Center which should
provide substantial information by June. He stated with the information taken
from the program they were anticipating fundamental changes through the
implementation phase by the end of the 2011 calendar year. Staff is piloting
the program which equated to a 20 percent completion of the entire project. He
stated by the end of the year there should be 80 percent implemented.
Mr. Keene stated there had been complications encountered with an increase in
the need for services during the first stages of the implementation process. The
efforts being undertaken so far were dealing with Staffing and standards of
customer service levels.
Council Member Shepherd stated her anticipation for the Development Center
was for it to be a hospitable environment. She stated there needed to be a
clear review of increasing fees in order to keep up with the increased service
levels and expenses.
Council Member Schmid stated economic development had been a part of the
Planning Department and under the reorganization it would be moving under
the City Manager. He asked what the long-term economic impacts would be
from the sustainable flow of funds to the City that might come from the mixed
use projects, new housing, retail, and office space. What were the
infrastructure requirements assumed by the City in any development. He asked
how not having the economic development division within Planning affected
Advanced Planning.
Mr. Williams stated the physical move had taken place and the personnel had
been reporting to the Deputy City Manager and to the City Manager for some
time. He felt there had been a close relationship in terms of tying his work in
with the Planning Department. There were mechanisms in place to ensure no
projects were over looked or under considered.
Council Member Schmid wanted to ensure the sustainable flow of income
generated by certain developments.
Mr. Williams agreed the Planning Staff was equipped to manage the economic
development of the City. The Manager of Economic Development and
Redevelopment and the Deputy Director for the Administrative Services
Department advises Staff on what excess information could be required from
the Applicant in an effort to strengthen the core areas.
Mr. Keene stated the City was not staffed at a level of the issues that faced the
City or the expectation of the Council or community for adequate Advanced
Planning. He suggested the need for a multi-year plan being in place if the
direction of the Council was for complex Advanced Planning. He stated there
16
needed to be a serious conversation regarding the City’s direction for Advanced
Planning between the Council and Staff.
Council Member Schmid stated one of the ways to look at the Advanced
Planning was to look at the infrastructure and the housing elements as a joint
entity. He asked what the Council could expect in terms of engagement in
terms of strategic planning changes with the budget, infrastructure, community
needs, housing, and land use changes to ensure those entities were progressing
in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. Williams stated as the projects were brought forward all of the
aforementioned items were components of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff was comfortable with the budget as it
was presented that there were sufficient resources to engage the Council and
the community on the issues discussed.
Mr. Williams stated there was sufficient Staff to engage in the issues although
to engage effectively, he felt there could be more Staffing and time spent on
the issues.
Council Member Schmid asked Mr. Perez if he had sufficient funds in the budget
to support the Planning Department over the next six to nine months with the
issues discussed.
Mr. Perez stated in the short term as the plan was developing, yes although
there were areas that needed to be identified where working with external
consultants may be necessary.
Mr. Williams stated his concern over the past few years was the time factor on
manifesting information to bring to Council.
Council Member Schmid stated when Council met with the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) they were focused on location. Council had concerns
with the number of new households. He asked how Staff saw Palo Alto
participating in that process.
Mr. Williams stated Staff followed up with both Council and the Planning and
Transportation Commission and was putting together a preliminary response to
ABAG after presenting the findings to the Council.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the use of the term administration with
respect to the budget.
Mr. Williams stated administration was the Director and various clerical and
administrative support.
17
Mr. Keene stated half of the Deputy City Manager’s position was allocated to
the Planning Department budget.
Chair Scharff stated in 2010 the actual number for Department Administration
was $584,000 and by the year 2012 the number was doubled to $1.2 million.
He asked for an explanation for the increase.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated the
increase in the 2010 actual and the 2012 proposed budget was the $300,000
placeholder which was to be reversed in Exhibit B and the High Speed Rail
dollars.
Chair Scharff asked about the job responsibilities of an Administrative Associate
II.
Mr. Williams explained the basic job description for the Administrative Associate
II and noted they were not adding the position but rather transferring the
eliminated FTE position from the Planning Department to the Development
Center.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff was requesting an addition of $100,000 or
was the request to transfer Staff.
Mr. Perez stated the proposed budget indicated the elimination of an FTE and
the funding for the position. Staff was recommending amending the proposed
budget to keep the FTE but move it to the Development Center.
Chair Scharff asked why then could the position not be removed if another one
was being added.
Mr. Perez stated the recommendation was to maintain the position rather than
eliminate it.
Chair Scharff clarified the reality was there was no funding for the position.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was requesting funding beyond the $300,000 placeholder
amount initially requested.
Chair Scharff asked whether there was $100,000 being added to the budget.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the end result was Staff was asking for $100,000 to be
added.
18
Chair Scharff asked for clarification as to how moving a position from a Planning
Department division to another division within the Planning Department
affected the Planning Department budget by $100,000.
Mr. Perez stated when the proposed budget eliminated the position it eliminated
the $95,000.
Chair Scharff asked when the position was eliminated.
Mr. Perez stated the proposed budget indicated the elimination of the
Administrative Associate II position and a placeholder for the $300,000 to Staff
the Development Center.
Chair Scharff clarified the Administrative Associate II was currently employed
by the City, there was a placeholder in the proposed budget of $300,000 for
Staffing the Development Center and then the position was eliminated.
Mr. Williams clarified the initial thought was the position could be eliminated
from the Planning Department although once the Development Center needs
were identified it was determined administrative support was necessary.
Chair Scharff asked why an Administrative Associate I could not perform the
necessary support duties, which was a lower cost.
Mr. Williams stated the position required a higher level customer service skill
whereas an Administrative Associate I position was more for basic filing.
Chair Scharff stated Staff was recommending dropping the Chief Planning and
Transportation Official and adding an Assistant Director position. He asked if the
Chief Planning and Transportation position was no longer necessary or if there
was a promotion being granted.
Mr. Williams stated the Chief Planning and Transportation person retired and
the position was not being filled. He stated there was a more critical need for an
Assistant Director.
Chair Scharff stated the City was hiring someone new at a higher level position
that could support the Director of Planning and take some of the workload.
Mr. Williams stated yes.
Mr. Perez stated the Planning Director did not currently have an Assistant
Director on the organizational chart.
Chair Scharff asked when the rail corridor study was initially proposed was the
amount $200,000 as budgeted or was it $100,000.
19
Mr. Williams stated the proposed budget was $200,000.
Chair Scharff asked how the Planning Department salaries and benefits
remained low while the other departments rose.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would have to look at that issue.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid approval of the tentative budget for Planning and Community
Environment.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
Mr. Perez reviewed the overall budget numbers to date. He stated the meeting
started with a proposed $131,000 excess, Staff requested and the Committee
approved $50,000 to the animal shelter study on May 5th, a $15,000 increase to
the Public Art maintenance, an increase of $110,000 for the Rail Corridor Study,
a return of $14,000 from the initial $300,000 placeholder which left a negative
$30,000. Staff was suggesting a reduction in the placeholder for pension and
health care to make the number back to balance.
Chair Scharff stated his agreement.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was the Rail Corridor Study
was a part of the $300,000 placeholder; she asked what happened.
Mr. Perez stated in the $300,000 placeholder there were the position changes;
the conversion of the Chief Planning Official to the Assistant Director, and the
three new additions which totaled $285,000 and the remaining $14,000 was
being returned.
3. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas
MAY 17
General Fund and Technology Capital Improvement Program
Electric Fiber and Gas Funds (Utilities)
Waste Water and Water as part of the Utilities (Utilities)
Department
non- departmental budget
The return of the City Council budget changes from May 3rd
Council Member Scharff stated on May 17th the General Fund CIP was not being
discussed.
20
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated the title had
changed to include the Technology Fund but yes, the intention was to review
the General Fund CIP.
Council Member Schmid stated it was mentioned possibly having the update for
the public safety on May 17th.
Mr. Perez stated the intention was to present the information for Committee
review then agendize the matter for the 24th of May.
Council Member Schmid stated the agenda for the 24th was a full meeting then
to add the public safety matter to the 24th did not appear feasible.
Mr. Perez stated there could be a meeting added if the Committee felt it was
necessary.
City Manager, James Keene suggested adding the item to the 25th of May and if
the wrap-up needed to be continued it could be.
Council Member Schmid suggested adding the public safety to the schedule for
the 17th and if there was time for it a discussion could be started.
Chair Scharff asked which Staff needed to be in attendance for the public safety
matter. He stated he preferred not to have Staff available if the matter was not
actually discussed.
Mr. Keene stated the Police Chief and a number of Staff would need to be in
attendance.
Chair Scharff suggested Tuesday the 31st of May for the wrap up and the 25th
for the public safety.
Mr. Perez stated holding the wrap-up on the 31st may impact Staff’s ability to
return to Council on the 13th of June.
Chair Scharff suggested placing the public safety on the same night as the
wrap-up and continue the wrap-up if there was a need.
Mr. Perez asked if the Committee Members were available on the 26th of May as
a back-up date in the event Vice Mayor Yeh was unavailable on the 31st.
Council Member Shepherd stated her availability for the 26th.
Council Member Schmid stated his availability for the 26th.
Chair Scharff stated his availability for the 26th.
21
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1 FIN 051711
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 17, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Chair Scharff (Chair), Council Member Schmid, Council Member Shepherd
Absent: Vice Mayor Yeh (arrived at 7 :24 p.m.)
Oral Communications
Former Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto thanked the Council for supporting Caltrain and urged
them to go forward with the go-pass for City Staff. She spoke regarding the Bike
Boulevard and making progress on a rapid basis.
Agenda Items
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated there was a memo
At-Places dated May 17, 2011 regarding Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal
Year 2012 Budget Hearings. He stated Staff had intended to provide a listing of
potential reductions for the Public Safety group and the Office of Emergency Services
(OES), although there were more details needing to be addressed therefore there will
be a special packet sent out on Thursday, May 19, 2011.
1. Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012 General and Technology Fund Capital
Improvement Program
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez gave a presentation on the Citywide Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which consisted of $72.9 million. He stated the full
amount was broken into different funds with roughly half was related to the General
Fund. He gave a background on how Staff determined which CIP’s were presented to
the City Council; in November a CIP Committee was created consisting of Staff from
2 FIN 051711
Public Works, Community Services, Planning and Transportation, and Administrative
Services. Staff reviewed and prioritized the criteria and the projects submitted by the
various departments. There was a review of the Infrastructure Reserve balance to see
what could be accommodated and a review of current Staff capacity. The CIP General
Fund totaled $35.9 million which was divided with $16 million from Library Bonds
proceeds; there was an annual transfer commitment to the Infrastructure Fund of
$10.5 million. There were donation of $3.1 million from the Friends of the Library and
$1 million from the Friends of the Magical Bridge. The Gas Tax Fund was money
received from the State of California; it was not discretionary funding and must be
used for street maintenance and a small amount for Stanford Research Park Traffic
Mitigation Fee which brought the total to $35.7 million and Staff. He noted there was a
draw on reserves of $227,000 leaving the Infrastructure Reserve Fund at $3.8 million.
He stated Staff was requesting the Committee approve the Fiscal Year 2012 CIP and
approve the next 4 years in concept.
Interim Director of Public Works Mike Sartor gave a presentation on the
accomplishments of the Public Works projects. He stated there was an accomplishment
of $4 million in street paving projects which was $2 million more than in prior years;
completed the renovations of Greer Park playing fields, irrigation and the Scott Annex;
the College Terrace Library was completed, the Downtown Library was expected to
open June of 2011, the Mitchell Park Library was 35 percent completed in construction,
and the design for the Main Library had been started. He noted changes to the CIP
projects; the Baylands Interpretive Center was moved out to 2015, the Municipal
Services Center upgrade had bee moved out to 2014, the Ventura Building had been
moved out to 2014, the Off-Road pathway resurfacing and repairs was de-funded by
$100,000 primarily due to some outstanding remaining funding left over from the
current level of funding from 2012, Rinconada Park improvements was moved to 2013
and the budget was increased to $1.3 million. He stated there was a request for
$200,000 as part of the $700,000 recommendation to complete wild fire mitigations in
the foothills; the first step was to clear shrubberies along the Arastradero and Page Mill
Roads to provide a buffer against wild fires; there was an Eleanor Pardee Park
improvement project which was primarily to irrigation systems and the turf project; the
Magical Bridge playground and as was previously mentioned there was a $1 million
commitment from the Friends of the Magical Bridge, there had been a commitment
from the General Fund of $300,000; the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Program, street resurfacing of $3.5 million, he noted $300,000 would be used to
reconstruct the curb and gutters alongside Channing Avenue, and $750,000 for
sidewalk repairs. He stated the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) had
plans to return to the full Council to present a progress report on the work that had
been accomplished to date. The IBRC had achieved a preliminary needs assessment of
$69 million for deferred maintenance requirements, $196 million in future
improvements needed, $244 million in planned maintenance over the next 25 years.
3 FIN 051711
Chair Scharff asked if Staff was suggesting if you were to take $244 million and divide
it over 25 years that would be the cost for planned maintenance.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, although with the caveat that the $244 million was in 2011
dollars and not what potential inflation might be.
Chair Scharff stated it was roughly an additional $10 million per year.
Mr. Sartor stated slightly less than that amount but yes. He noted the IBRC was going
to be assessing the gap with respect to known funding. He stated Staff was not
prepared to present the prioritized order or what the potential funding mechanisms
might be although the IBRC would be presenting the information to the full Council in
June of 2011.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the current rate of planned maintenance was it
between $10 and $11 million annually and the $244 million over the next 25 years was
in addition to the current amount.
Mr. Sartor stated currently the City was spending $10 to $12 million annually on
planned maintenance.
Chair Scharff stated with the amount you provided multiplied over 25 years the
amount was $244 million. He asked if that was the amount provided and the amount
currently being spent although he did not understand where the confusion was.
Mr. Sartor stated the gap was in the deferred maintenance and the replacement
renovation projects.
Chair Scharff confirmed the City was spending the correct amount on planned
maintenance so if Staff cured the $69 million on the deferred maintenance and the
replacement maintenance of $196 million then on an ongoing basis of the $10 or $11
million the City was good.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated the reason the numbers
were not comparable was because the slide shown was reflecting all sources of
funding whereas on the previous slide the amount was only reflective of the
Infrastructure Reserve Fund.
Chair Scharff stated he was interested in what the planned maintenance gap actually
was.
4 FIN 051711
City Manager, James Keene stated it may be too early to determine where the IBRC
was and what their categories were and how to cross reference those back to the
current amount built in to the planned maintenance.
Chair Scharff stated when Staff returned to the Finance Committee he requested there
be a clear understanding of if the deferred maintenance was removed and a decision
was made on the replacement and renovation issue so the City would not fall further
behind in the future. He reiterated the City spent $10 million annually and the question
was does that number need to be increased or whether it was a sufficient amount.
Mr. Perez stated there were other funds that came into the program where the amount
was closer to $18 to $20 million that was spent. There was funding from local
agencies, donations, grants, and the gas tax money. Those amounts needed to be
added into the General Fund as transfer monies.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the gap being shown between the
annual General Fund transfer in the order of $10 million annually and the infrastructure
funding need rising up to $30 million. He stated the average spending on CIP’s was on
the average of $19 million annually.
Mr. Perez stated the Capital Program of $35.9 million included the $16 million in
Library Bond monies. If the Bond monies were removed the CIP was down to $20
million. There was the Furniture and Technology Project at a cost of $3 million for the
project LB11000, $3.384 million of salaries and benefits for a total cost of $6 million
which was not addressing what he considered a regular program.
Council Member Schmid stated he reviewed the past 5 years and there had been some
sort of Public/Private Partnership which tended to contribute funds. He stated in terms
of the salaries he expected with consideration of capital costs the salaries and benefits
of those Staff members working on the projects would be included in the overall costs.
Mr. Perez stated he agreed and was trying to provide more clarity with what the net
contribution towards the planned maintenance and other categories was. He noted
some of the funding was not controlled by the City Staff as in the Gas Tax Funding;
while it has been consistent over the past few years there was no certainty that there
would be consistency in the future.
Mr. Keene stated the questions being asked appeared to be more focused on the IBRC
than the 2012 budget. He stated information for the IBRC was what was truly in the
categories that totaled $509 million and was that completely the long-term needs of
the City or were there criteria being applied to generate that number. He stated in the
10 year Long-Range Financial Forecast there was a built-in a base line Infrastructure
5 FIN 051711
Reserve of $10 million annually which was separate from the $10 million below the line
that the Finance Committee had discussed. He stated if the current forecast covered
half of the IBRC forecasted needs then the question was did the outside funding
received cover the remainder of the gap. He noted some of the outside funds received
may not be going towards the infrastructure needs and in general there were cash flow
needs throughout the City.
Council Member Schmid stated in reviewing the past 5 years it appeared all of the
outside funding was fairly steady. He asked for a history showing the steady flow of
outside incomes and where they came from. He requested that the IBRC have the
most accurate and up to date information to work with in order for them to present
accurate information to the Council.
Mr. Keene stated lets look back say 5 to 10 years and say oh look, it looks like we
actually have a decent flow of funding coming into the capital budget. Then I would say
as City Manager then why are so many of our streets in such crummy condition. Why
are so many of our sidewalks in need and do we really think our replacement program
was ok. Because we can not accelerate it because we did not have enough funding.
Something seems off there to me, It was not as if we were right where we wanted to
be and we have a cycle where we can replenish it.
Chair Scharff stated he agreed and in reviewing the CIP there were items that had not
been replaced in years and with a deferred maintenance of $69 million it showed true.
He understood there was $10 million spent annually although that was mainly for new
projects and not to planned maintenance. He asked Staff to return with how much was
actually spent on maintenance.
Deputy Director of Administrative Services Department, Joe Saccio stated the IBRC in
conjunction with the Public Works Staff was putting together an extensive inventory of
all of the City’s assets. The intention was to isolate the costs, especially the
incremental costs and integrate what was being called gaps into the Long-Range
Financial Forecast and tailor it to show all of the funds. He stated the goal was for the
final product to show all of the revenue sources and the needs for the next 25 years.
Mr. Perez stated based on the approval you made last night there was a change to the
document to move $2 million from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year 2011 for street
improvement.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification.
Mr. Perez stated during last nights meeting, Staff requested approval to move forward
award of a contract and to move forward funding from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year
6 FIN 051711
2011.
Chair Scharff clarified that request was on the Consent Calendar during the City
Council meeting.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, the full Council approved the moving of the funds during the
May 16, 2011 City Council meeting. He clarified there would be an advance in the 2012
Street Maintenance Project to allow Staff to start the project during the summer
months, particularly in the areas of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Mr. Keene stated it was in essence an early contract award.
Mr. Perez stated the net impact was zero and the City was still funding the programs at
the same level previously proposed.
Chair Scharff asked whether there needed to be a separate vote for this item.
Mr. Perez stated no, the Council made the approval therefore this was merely a
notation.
Chief Transportation Officer, Jaime Rodriguez stated the California Avenue Project was
beginning the design phase where the design consultants were to be interviewed in
early June. The first task being asked of the consultants was to provide samples of
what widening the sidewalks along California Avenue would look like. He clarified the
Council would be reviewing the different approaches to the widening of the sidewalks in
early September. He stated Staff was not currently requesting additional funding,
however, in February Council had requested the addition of widening the sidewalks to
the project which would incur a cost not included in the original proposal.
Council Member Shepherd asked for confirmation that a grant was secured from the
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, there was a grant secured and the City had the support from
the VTA to work with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He stated Staff was
working with the City Attorney’s office on a law suit that was received during the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the whether there were design
plans for the Park Boulevard Plaza Fountain.
Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, $300,000 of project funding was dedicated to reconstruction
of the Plaza.
7 FIN 051711
Council Member Shepherd clarified the $300,000 was a portion of the $1.1 million.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd stated when Staff returned with the California Avenue
review there would only be the widening of the sidewalks remaining.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct, in September the only item would be the
widening of the sidewalks although throughout the phases of the project Staff would
be returning to Council several times to solicit input on the designs for the entire
project.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was the City had secured the VTA grant for the
landscape work and within discussions with the Council there were discussion of
widening sidewalks there was always the potential that that could be more costly than
what was within the VTA funding.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Mr. Keene stated he wanted to be sure there was clarity with the Council that there
may be additional cost associated with the completion of the California Avenue Project.
Council Member Schmid stated for clarification the VTA Grant monies did include some
sidewalk widening in the design although the current discussion was an extension of
the widening. Staff insinuated there would be additional budget requests needed
although the amount would not be substantial.
Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff was unaware of the additional costs for widening the
sidewalks which would be dependent upon the option Council chose during the
September meeting.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was requesting tentative approval of the General and Technology
Fund for Fiscal Year 2012.
Council Member Shepherd stated with respect to the Cubberley Community Center
there were improvements in the 2013 and 2014 budgets; she asked when the
covenant expired.
Mr. Perez stated the covenant expired in 2014.
Council Member Shepherd stated it appeared there was a proposal of inputting $1.5
8 FIN 051711
million into Cubberley before the covenant expired. She asked for clarification on how
secure Staff was on the appropriation.
Mr. Perez stated a lot of it was triggered by the notification the City had to give to the
PAUSD by December 2013 which coincided with the timing of the projects. He stated
Staff would need to review where they were in the process for that option and if they
were not ready to make a decision then none of the projects at Cubberley would move
forward.
Council Member Shepherd asked when Staff presented the Cubberley document would
it include the real estate, property management fees, and all of the salaries.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the document included revenues and expenditures; expenses for
Community Services, Public Works, and Administrative Services; and the revenue and
expenses for the Cubberley operations.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff would present a rent role which provided a
sketch of the leases per square footage and who the tenants were.
Mr. Perez stated yes.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the Ventura project.
Mr. Perez stated there were 2 projects for Ventura.
Mr. Sartor stated one of the projects was a renovation of the playing field of $25,000.
Council Member Shepherd stated the PAUSD called out their interest in utilizing
Ventura. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was aware of the interest and both he and the City Manger had
been in discussions with Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) with respect to their
lease and the option on a short-term basis to renew the lease until the situation was
resolved. He noted the site was the property of the City although there was a one-year
notification clause in the agreement where the PAUSD could provide a notice if they
would like to buy the site back from the City.
Council Member Shepherd stated she was unaware of the buy back clause. She noted
it took time for the PAUSD acquisition and she asked if Staff had a time frame as to the
possibility.
Mr. Perez stated the due to the Cubberley prioritization discussions, the Ventura
9 FIN 051711
discussions were placed below that priority. He noted he and the City Manager had
been to PACCC and the Public Works department was scheduled to review the needs in
order to prepare for the discussions with the PAUSD.
Chair Scharff stated he was unaware there was a $100,000 repair threshold where the
City needed approval from the PAUSD for capital work. He stated his concern was on
page 86 it showed by 2013 the City had gone just below the $100,000 on the design
work and if the PAUSD did not approve the project at the $600,000 level the funds that
had been spent were wasted.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would have a discussion with the PAUSD on the overall picture
prior to starting any of the design work.
Chair Scharff stated his understanding was there would be no funds expended on
Cubberley during the 2012 fiscal year.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was not proposing any new projects at the Cubberley site but he
was uncertain as to whether there were existing projects occurring.
Mr. Sartor stated there was paving occurring at Cubberley in some of the parking areas
under the current paving contract.
Chair Scharff asked the cost.
Mr. Sartor stated it was approximately $300,000.
Mr. Perez stated there was roofing repair work also occurring.
Chair Scharff stated that was the project he had noticed earlier at a cost of $150,000
for buildings J and K. He asked if that repair work was being performed on the 8-acres
owned by the City.
Mr. Perez stated he did not believe so; the City had the H building.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff had considered whether that was a good use of
funds at this time.
Mr. Keene stated appropriate Staff were not available although the information would
be retrieved and returned to the Committee at the next meeting.
Mr. Sartor stated that was an annual project but he would check with his Staff on the
necessity of the repair.
10 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated there was a section referring to the Cubberley site with a roof
repair that required sealing; he asked if there was more detailed information.
Mr. Sartor stated the roofs at the Cubberley site were flat roofs which required tar and
gravel.
Chair Scharff clarified it was the Cubberley Auditorium. He stated when he saw the
$150,000 he wondered if that cost could be deferred and then he had concern with the
description of the auditorium roof being in dire need of repair.
Mr. Sartor stated according to the proposed budget the spray-on roofing was not
schedule until 2015.
Chair Scharff stated that was correct although it also stated the roof was in dire need
of repair and if the repairs waited too long the spray-on roof would no longer be
sufficient.
Mr. Sartor stated the spray-on roof cost was $150,000 whereas the cost to replace the
roof was a significantly higher cost. Staff had assessed the roof needed to be repaired
by 2015 or it would be in need of replacement.
Council Member Schmid stated the Safe Routes to School had an expenditure of
$291,000 and then funding from the Gas Tax Fund and local agency grants adding up
to $528,000. He asked where the money was being spent.
Mr. Rodriguez stated historically the Safe Routes to School CIP Program was used for
traffic calming along suggested routes to schools. The new CIP Program provided for
capital and more programmatic type of improvements. The ongoing $100,000 annually
was funding the capital improvements in response to the community requests for
traffic calming improvements. The injection of funding, the $291,000 was to cover the
monies received through the Grants.
Council Member Schmid asked what the other $300,000 went towards.
Mr. Perez stated he would research the requested information and return with the
appropriate response.
Mr. Rodriguez stated there was $528,000 reimbursement funds from the Grants.
11 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated the City was committing $300,000 and were expecting the Friends
of the Magic Bridge to raise $1 million, he asked if Staff was aware of the amount of
funds the group had already raised.
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts introduced Olenka Villa Real,
Chair of the Friends of the Magical Bridge Organization who stated the Friends have
currently raised $150,000.
Chair Scharff asked what happened to the $300,000 if the Friends were unable to raise
the remainder of the $1 million.
Mr. Perez stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2012 Staff projected a balance of $3.8
million, however if the donation did not materialize the remainder came out to the
projected balance. He clarified it did not affect the projects in 2013 although would
affect the projects in 2014 and 2015.
Chair Scharff stated for clarification the City was committed to donate to the project a
sum of $300,000 and if the $1 million being raised by the Friends did not materialize
the project did not happen this year.
Mr. Sartor stated the project would not go away if the funds were not raised. The
project would carry forward in the budget until the adequate funds had been raised.
Mr. Perez stated there were some projects that were completed and then
reimbursement was received while other projects the funds were collected then the
project was completed.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the Staff recommendation was it that if the
Friends raised $1 million the project moved forward and the City provided $300,000. If
the Friends did not raise the $1 million the $300,000 would theoretically be there for
the 2013 Fiscal Year. Since the funds were not spent in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget it
would need to be moved to the 2013 budget and it would need to be voted on again.
Mr. Sartor stated that was not correct, once the Committee adopted a budget and
funded a project, that project stayed alive.
Chair Scharff asked if there was a time at which point the funding commitment expired
if the Friends were unable to raise the funding necessary to complete their donation.
Mr. Perez stated the Municipal Code clarified if a project did not have expenditures
after 2 years it closes.
12 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated for clarification by voting for the project there was a 2 year time
limit placed on the friends group to raise the funds.
Mr. Betts stated one of the first steps taken with Public/Private Partnerships was to go
before the City Council with a Letter of Intent; the Friends of the Magical Bridge had
been working on the Letter of Intent. At the end of the 2 years they returned to the
Council with a funding agreement where all of the plans had been worked out and the
funds were readily available in the bank.
Ms. Villa Real asked when the 2 years began for fundraising.
Mr. Perez stated July 1, 2011 began the fiscal year.
Chair Scharff asked how people would donate funds to the Magical Bridge.
Ms. Villa Real gave a web address of www.magicalbridge.org and the Friends also
accepted checks.
Chair Scharff stated the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement Project description
noted water intrusion. He stated water damage was expensive and waiting until 2015
may cause a higher cost by creating more severe damage. He asked whether there
was currently water intrusion.
Mr. Sartor stated there was a general building study completed 3 years ago with a
consulting firm and they surveyed all of the City buildings and made recommendations
on maintenance efforts over a twenty year span. He recalled their recommendation
was the water intrusion work be performed in 2015. He stated he would verify the
work had not been deferred.
Chair Scharff stated that survey report was completed in 2008, 3 years ago and the
recommended work to be completed in 4 years with the justification for the work being
water infiltration. His concern was the reasons behind the necessary work were more
severe than what Staff was confirming.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff would clarify the language.
Chair Scharff asked what was being done for the system upgrades on the Fire Station 1
mechanical and why was it a priority compared to other items.
13 FIN
051711
Mr. Sartor stated the Facilities Maintenance Staff maintained records of all of the City
buildings being worked on and there were planned maintenance activities each year.
The maintenance was planned a number of years ahead in the planned maintenance
program.
Mr. Keene noted Fire Station 1 was the highest volume station in the City and
maintenance and upkeep were necessary.
Chair Scharff asked why this item was prioritized and if there was a justification for the
urgency.
Mr. Sartor stated it was determined that ongoing maintenance was important as to not
end up in a deferred maintenance situation. He stated there were other maintenance
projects occurring not just the Fire Station 1.
Chair Scharff stated according to the report he did not believe so.. He had question on
the City’s responsibility for the back flow prevention when his understanding was the
private businesses received notice of their responsibility to install and have them
inspected.
Mr. Sartor stated he needed to refer to the Utilities Department on whether the City
was in compliance with the requirement but he assured the Committee with the project
underway compliance was eminent.
Director of Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated she did not recall the specifics of
the negotiation with the City although the Department of Health was aware that for
those facilities that were not yet in compliance there were commitments and progress
being made and they were willing to accept that as part of the compliance. She stated
currently if the backflow devices were not installed the City was out of compliance
although there was proof provided to the Department of Health compliance was in
progress.
Chair Scharff stated the justification to replace the Council Chambers carpet suggested
it should be replaced now although it was not being requested until 2013. He asked if
the delay was for budgetary purposes and if the current state of the carpet was what
determined the need for replacement.
Mr. Sartor stated the Council Chambers carpet replacement had been discussed for a
few years and when the prioritization was underway it was chosen to wait on the
replacement until 2013 as a workload issue.
14 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated the carpets were being replaced on other floors in City Hall and he
asked how those carpets compared to the Council Chambers.
Mr. Keene stated he was uncertain how the other areas compared although he knew
there was other work being performed in the Council Chambers which may cause
damage to the newly installed carpet.
Chair Scharff asked whether the Parking Lot J repairs included the design costs.
Mr. Sartor stated that project was currently under design and the design costs were in
the prior year budget. The construction portion was being requested under the current
proposed budget. He noted Staff was in discussions with the Parking District in sharing
the cost or a recover cost.
Chair Scharff stated if the Parking District agreed and fund would be reimbursed to the
Infrastructure Fund.
Mr. Sartor stated that was correct.
Chair Scharff asked if studies were normally a part of the CIP.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, Staff considered the Conceptual Design Study through the actual
contract as part of the Capital Improvement Project.
Chair Scharff stated $375,000 was a large sum of money for Tree Shop Space and he
asked how many shop areas there were.
Mr. Sartor stated the funding was for the Park Maintenance Shop and the Tree Section
Maintenance Shop which included a meeting room and equipment maintenance areas.
Chair Scharff asked what the reason was behind this being chosen as a priority.
Mr. Sartor stated for health and safety reasons, it was a poor working environment at
present.
Council Member Shepherd asked for an update on what the requested budget funds
were being used for with respect to the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project.
Mr. Rodriguez stated the requested funds would be used for the Charleston Road
portion of the project from Fabian Way to El Camino Real and it did not include the
Arastradero Road area.
15 FIN
051711
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the Charleston Road portion had already
been designed.
Mr. Rodriguez stated no, the requested funding would account for both the design and
the construction.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification that this request was not a part of the
current piloting project with respect to Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Chair Scharff asked once the work was performed on the medians what was planned to
prevent them from returning to the current state of disrepair. He noted concern for the
description of damage was due to water conservation.
Mr. Sartor stated the issue was a number of the medians had been neglected and had
not been maintained causing irrigation systems to break and the plant life to die. In
response to maintaining the new medians he referred to Mr. Betts.
Mr. Betts stated there was a contract for median landscape maintenance and the City
changed the plant life to a more native species with a simpler pallet.
Chair Scharff stated once the medians were repaired the City should be able to
maintain them on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Betts stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if the City of Mountain View shared the cost in maintaining the
Wilkie Way Bridge.
Mr. Keene stated the entire bridge was within the City of Palo Alto.
Council Member Schmid stated maintained medians made for a walkable community.
Chair Scharff stated concern for the Golf Course tree maintenance that the description
stated the trees had become dangerous. He hoped once the CIP had been completed
there will not be a repeat of trees damaged to that level.
Mr. Sartor stated the tree maintenance was a Parks Division matter.
16 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated he was aware and there was no response required.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what trends were being seen with respect to construction costs
for budget versus the actuals.
Mr. Sartor stated the BID’s on the Mitchell Park Library were considerably below
estimate and the Street Maintenance BID and estimate which was recently awarded
came in together due to the Staff dramatically lowering the cost per ton for asphalt
materials. He stated there would be a better understanding on the question later this
month when the BID’s for the Art Center Project. The construction trend showed the
costs continued to be depressed.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether or not the budgeted and estimated cost for the CIP
determined whether or not there was a competitive procurement process.
Mr. Sartor stated all of the Capital Projects were competitively bid.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether there was a dollar threshold that triggered the process.
Mr. Sartor stated in professional services there were times when an informal bid was
done with a threshold of $25,000, for the construction projects there was always
opened for competitive bidding.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the current budget was from 2012 to 2016 and to the extent
there were projects that extended out fiscal years. He asked where that locked in the
City in terms of the vote.
Mr. Perez stated the Capital Plan was similar to the Long-Range Forecast with one
caveat that there may be a decision made to spend on a design in 2012 and in 2013
the project may not move forward even though there had already been a significant
investment. He noted the vote was in no way giving approval for years 2 to 5, they
would be reviewed again through the next budget cycle.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there were several Cubberley projects beyond 2012 but he
asked whether the one project for 2012 had been discussed with the IBRC.
Mr. Perez stated there was discussion earlier in the meeting with respect to the
$150,000 roofing cost. Staff was to return to the Committee with a response at the
next meeting on the urgency of the project. He clarified all of the other maintenance
had been deferred until after the discussion with the PAUSD.
17 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if this matter would be returned during Mid-Year due to the
uncertainty of the disposition.
Mr. Perez stated if there was an agreement reached on the facilities prior to the current
timeline and there was an immediate need from the departments it was possible.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for an explanation of the division between the Public Works
Department and the Utilities Department with respect to the street lighting projects.
Mr. Sartor stated the Street Light General Fund Project was primarily for street lights
that were knocked down or for installing new street lights where utility poles were
undergrounded. He noted generally all of those types of lights were installed with the
standard high pressure luminaries and the LED project was with the Utilities
Department.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked the proposed timing of any activity going on with the Los Altos
Treatment Plan (LATP) and what would need to be done to surmise the usable acreage
or space.
Mr. Sartor stated the Los Altos Treatment Plant Project was completing the actual
clean-up activities at the Plant so it could be used for future uses although it was not
specific to those uses.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked when the deadline was for maximizing usable land.
Mr. Sartor stated he was uncertain.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated some of the justification included was the exact use of the
facility was not known and the US Army Corps of Engineers approved wetlands expired
on August 24, 2013 and the CIP was needed to initiate the permit process to maximize
the usefulness of area b. He asked when the permit process would need to start for the
City to have maximizable usable land.
Mr. Sartor asked for the page number so he could follow along.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated page 113.
Mr. Bobel stated the manner in which to think of the LATP was two separate areas. One
which would be more suitable for some type of development towards the Highway 101
and one as restoration of wetlands towards the back side. He stated the more likely
area to swap or to leave as wetlands would be not the area currently being studied but
the rest of the area.
18 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked the total acreage of the plant.
Mr. Sartor stated if the City wanted to get a wetlands delineation that gave the City
more developable land, the delineation map needed to be instituted prior to the
deadline. He stated at present the developable land was between 6 and 9-acres and
depending upon the work to be done. There are some settling ponds that may or may
not be included; part of the work was to work on that.
Vice Mayor Yeh said the work would actually be in fiscal year 12-13.
Mr. Sartor agreed, saying work with the Corp of Engineers takes time.
Mr. Perez said the site was owned evenly by the General and Refuse Funds.
Council Member Shepherd asked about salary and benefits reimbursements. She
asked if this fund was being used to reimburse Departments now for the work being
done on design and the build project for the libraries.
Mr. Perez confirmed that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd questioned why the fund did not take a big dip once the
library opened.
Mr. Sartor said this did not fund all of the design work; the bulk of it was private
consulting firms.
Council Member Shepherd said when he went to the Library to work was that billed to
this fund.
Mr. Sartor said it was. He did not foresee a need to reduce Staff at this point.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the Librarians were assigned their time out of this
budget.
Mr. Perez said the Operating General Fund was used.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they should follow their time on the project to
allocate it to this fund.
Mr. Perez said their time was tracked.
19 FIN
051711
Mr. Sartor said the Staffing was mainly Engineering Staff and their time was being
tracked. Library Staff time managing the libraries was not tracked as it was in the
Operating Budget.
Council Member Shepherd agreed it was in their budget.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012
General Fund Capital Improvement Program
Vice Mayor Yeh confirmed that Staff was going to follow up on the Cubberly roof
replacement.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff would follow up on the revenue.
Mr. Perez said that as part of the infrastructure work, they would update the
information.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Administrative Services Director Perez reviewed the fund. It totaled $2.5 million of
which about $1 million was reimbursements for a net cost to the fund of $1.5 million.
He reviewed a few of the programs including the Library Computer project which was
$350,000, and the RFID project which was $150 million. Changes included the SAP
CIP recommendations the Finance Committee had made. The item will go to Council
on June 13, 2010. Staff recommended they approve the defunding of the Utility Bill
Enhancement for 2012.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the Radio Infrastructure Replacement project. The shift to
regional technology was a frequency shift, he wanted to know if it included radio
frequency.
Deputy Director Technical Services , Charlie Cullen stated that fund was in place and
had been in place for a few years. Most would be paid for by grant funding. Portable
radios would have to be replaced by the City. Funding needed to be in place to keep
the current system in operation until the new system is in place.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that covered all emergency responders.
Mr. Cullen stated it would.
20 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the contracting that was in place such as HARA and O
Power.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated there were small projects they
could move forward with for bill enhancements. She stated waiting one year would
provide a better plan. Staff would meet all the mandated requirements for bill
presentation.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012 Technology
Fund Capital Improvement Program.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Chair Scharff clarified the Motion included the defunding.
Mr. Perez stated he agreed.
2. Utilities Electric Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras spoke to the Utilities Electric Fund. She stated
the Fiber Optics rates increased 1.5 percent, Waste Water increased for the Cost of
Service Analysis adjustment, and the Water Rates increased 12.5 percent. Financial
forecast rate changes were recommended previously for approval. She said that the
position changes included one Full Time Employee (FTE) for an account representative.
Council approved the action in CMR 218:10. Another position change included one
eliminated FTE and the addition of a half.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong clarified the waste water rate would
not involve a rate increase, but an adjustment as a result of the Cost of Service Study.
Ms. Paras recapped the revenue decreases to the department which was $3.5 million in
total. She said the Electric Fund expenses decreased by $4.1 million. This included a
net increase of an energy efficiency program for $.9 million. The majority of the
decrease was due to the decrease in electric commodity purchases of $4.2 million. She
recapped the Capital Budget for the Electric Fund. The total expenditures increased by
$8.7 million including the under grounding districts and rebuilding project and the
substation transformer replacement. There were no Electric Rate increases in the
Proposed Budget.
21 FIN
051711
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez clarified they needed both
the Operating and Capital for the Electric Fund.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the under grounding districts. He confirmed the Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E) subsidy had been discontinued. He wanted an overview of the
program.
Ms. Fong stated it was AT&T that had approval to collect from its customers the costs
of under grounding. There were some projects with clear conditions for recovery of
costs. Once the conditions are no longer applicable AT&T would change the amount
they would cover. That is still undetermined beyond the next few years.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about pursuing new projects with allocated Enterprise Funds.
Ms. Fong stated dedicated Enterprise Funds being used could be discussed.
Assistant Utilities Director, Tomm Marshall stated they were separate issues. A portion
of revenues are set aside for under grounding. The repair is based on need.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the lifecycle of an underground district.
Mr. Marshall stated it was more expensive to maintain underground, they do not last
as long.
Ms. Fong added that it was more difficult to find issues underground.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that was quantifiable.
Mr. Marshall stated he did not have the exact amount.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated this was significant and he appreciated that it would go to the
Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC).
Ms. Fong stated Staff would review it sometime this year.
Council Member Schmid asked about stopping under grounding.
Ms. Fong stated she was not aware that had been discussed.
Council Member Schmid asked if the economics had changed enough that they should
22 FIN
051711
discuss rebuilding above ground.
Ms. Fong stated that would be a policy discussion. She assumed the residents would
not approve the process.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was for purely aesthetic reasons.
Ms. Fong stated yes, it would be for aesthetics.
Council Member Schmid asked for a map of where the current underground districts
were.
Mr. Marshall stated the map could be located on the website.
Council Member Schmid asked to see it.
Ms. Fong stated that the Capital Budget Book showed a map of the CIPs.
Council Member Schmid stated he wanted to see the specific districts. He asked if it
were better to have above or below ground lines during an emergency.
Ms. Fong stated above ground was certainly easier to work on.
Mr. Marshall showed a map of the districts from the City Website.
Council Member Schmid stated AT&T drove it toward the Commercial Districts.
Mr. Marshall confirmed areas with heavy concentration of wires would fit within their
criteria. They have made some exceptions in the past, but they no longer will.
Ms. Fong stated the criteria was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC). They issued the criteria.
Council Member Schmid stated the strategic discussion with the UAC would be to
determine future policy.
Ms. Fong stated they could petition the CPUC, though she was not sure it would work.
Vice Mayor Yeh discussed the shift toward wireless technology. He said he thought a
feasible alternative would be to use light poles. He asked how the conversation with
the UAC would start.
23 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong said they would discuss the issues with them. They would want to engage
the community in the discussion. They would fully vet the issue with the community.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if it would be helpful if the Council Members could have an early
role in the conversation.
Ms. Fong clarified that if they forget that step, it would go to the UAC probably several
times.
Chair Scharff stated he thought this was an important issue for the community. He
stated there were costs with under grounding and that was a community choice. It
was different than a General Fund cost. It would be helpful to have Council input early
in the conversation.
Ms. Fong stated there was a joint UAC Council meeting in July.
Chair Scharff stated that may not be enough time to have a detailed conversation.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was an innate sense of equality and fairness
that this issue comes in line with. Navigating the conversation will be difficult as this is
a very long term project.
Chair Scharff stated that was a valid point. He said they could have a surcharge on
rates. It would be interesting to know how much it would take to get this done in five
years.
Ms. Fong stated the City currently collected 2 percent for under grounding.
Chair Scharff stated if that were raised, it could help and should be discussed.
Vice Mayor Yeh discussed the LED project and what the reduction in energy use would
be.
Ms. Fong stated it would be about .4 percent of the total electric load for the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated in terms of savings it was expensive to achieve. He asked if the
analysis showed it was cost effective.
Ms. Fong stated when the project started the cost of LEDs were more expensive
making it more cost effective now. Over time they anticipate they will save money,
24 FIN
051711
but they couldn’t determine exactly what that would be because of the newness of the
technology. There was a safety issue involved as the lighting was improved with LED
street lights so it was more than just the cost savings under consideration.
Chair Scharff asked about the indoor LED research program.
Ms. Fong stated the results of the program included customer satisfaction levels, and
what level they were willing to pay for it.
Chair Scharff stated the program showed that customers were willing to pay about ¼
of the market price.
Ms. Fong stated this meant that they probably would not do a rebate program.
Chair Scharff felt the program was not successful just because they were taken quickly.
The quality of information seemed to miss how they would move forward.
Ms. Fong stated they learned that the price of the bulbs needed to be different. Staff
were surprised by the demand.
Chair Scharff stated he was glad Staff took the risk to have the program. He just
wished there were more substance in the information.
Council Member Schmid discussed the street light project being completed by Spring
2011.
Ms. Fong stated the roll out was slower than anticipated.
Mr. Marshall stated they had a contractor installing them, but then pulled out. They
were currently looking for another one.
Ms. Fong stated the pilot lights were still up.
Mr. Marshall stated some were up outside of City Hall on Bryant.
Council Member Schmid stated regarding demand side management, the Operating
Budget showed $3.6 million capturing other than just demand.
Ms. Fong stated it was their best estimate.
Council Member Schmid stated that came to over 3 percent of sales.
25 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong agreed.
Council Member Schmid stated in addition they spent about 5 percent on alternate
fuels and then one percent on Palo Alto Green.
Ms. Fong felt Palo Alto Green was less than one percent.
Council Member Schmid stated in total it was roughly 10 percent for sustainability
programs.
Ms. Fong agreed.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was a reasonable target.
Ms. Fong stated they identify programs and then what it would take to fund them.
There were State Standards in effect. About $2 million in the Calaveras reserves were
set aside in the current year budget. With respect to alternate fuels they haven’t spent
a lot of that money, though they do attempt to identify programs.
Council Member Schmid stated he was interested in knowing if 10 percent was a good
number.
Ms. Fong stated they hadn’t set aside that level in the other funds.
Council Member Schmid noted in the Electric Utilities that spending on Capital went
down.
Ms. Fong stated they had some uncompleted projects to carry forward. It did not
make sense to fund new projects. They funded what was doable.
Council Member Schmid stated regarding reserves, there was an electric supply
reserve of $40 million, a distribution reserve of $9.3 million. The Calaveras reserve
had a $5 million transfer into the electric fund. He asked if there was too much
reserve.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was going to have the UAC review that in July. One opportunity
would be another transmission line which could take the entire Calaveras fund.
Council Member Schmid stated in the near term he was concerned about the transfer.
He asked about the Equity Transfer which was going up by $400,000.
26 FIN
051711
Sr. Financial Analyst Dale Wong stated the equity transfer calculation was revised a
few years ago and prior to that it was a flat rate increase each year. Now it is based
on the asset base.
Council Member Schmid stated the systems improvements CIP fell by $1.5 million.
Mr. Wong stated there was a lag on the calculations.
Mr. Perez stated they could present the exact formula at a future meeting.
Council Member Schmid stated that would be helpful.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they monitor where the LED lights end up. It
seemed most are not properly recycled.
Ms. Fong stated the LEDs should not be burning out yet. She did not think there was a
mechanism for monitoring that.
Council Member Shepherd suggested the process should be communicated.
Utilities Advisory Commission Chair, Asher Waldfogel stated this had been reviewed by
the Commission and it seemed consistent to prior year budgets. He requested that if
they do review the under grounding issues Council should clearly direct the
Commission on how broad of a scope the review should be.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Electric Fund.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Scharff asked if Ms. Fong needed a motion for the under grounding project.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was clear on what was needed.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated if there was a mechanism Staff envisioned that would be useful
otherwise Colleagues Memos would work.
Ms. Fong stated she envisioned going to the UAC, getting community response, then
going to Council for guidance. Then they could discuss policy after that with the clarity
of Council guidance.
27 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh suggested a motion that would be for the City Manager to direct the
Utilities Department to bring back to the Finance Committee a proposed process for
reviewing the under grounding districts.
Ms. Fong suggested that a motion would add an extra step and delay the process. She
felt Staff was clear on what needed to be done. They could not do anything without
Council input anyway.
Council Member Shepherd stated a 50-100 year process was unsustainable. She
thought Council should be consulted prior to the UAC.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to direct Staff to hold a
Study Session with the UAC and the Finance Committee prior to the UAC discussion.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
3. Utilities Fiber Optic Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the fund. The revenue increase was
$.3 million and decreased $.1 million. The fund had $12 million in reserve. The ending
balance was well above the guidelines.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the Operating Budget showed additional study. He asked if
more funds would be needed to supplement this as tied to wireless.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated this would be brought to
Council later in the fall. Without a specific project, they had not requested the budget
yet.
Council Member Schmid stated it was an impressive growth in the fund. He confirmed
the Capital CIP showed $300,000 per year was a place holder.
Council Member Shepherd stated aggressive movement was important. She wanted to
see a plan for fiber optics.
Chair Scharff stated it appeared the more they spent the more they made without
meeting demand. He wanted to know why it wasn’t moving quicker.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was doing what they could manage. There was a Staffing issue.
28 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff asked why they couldn’t contract the work out.
Ms. Fong stated they did not have the Staff to manage the contractors in the design
phase.
Chair Scharff asked why they couldn’t hire a consultant to do that.
Ms. Fong stated they could, but they still have to build it. They have been capturing
the low hanging fruit. She said it was currently profitable.
Chair Scharff asked why they didn’t ramp up to build it out.
Ms. Fong asked for clarification.
Chair Scharff stated he was talking about the fiber backbone. He asked how they were
getting the revenue without growing the business.
Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, Tomm Marshall stated the backbone was in
place. They were making customer connections. There were particular customers that
needed this and were already using it. Adding additional customers creates a more
competitive market.
City Manager, James Keene asked what the schedule for returning to Council was.
Mr. Marshall said it was going to the UAC in June.
Utilities Advisory Commission Chair, Walt Waldfogel said the UAC had asked the same
questions. They concluded they should review the study in June. The questions were
legitimate, but it wasn’t clear if more advertising dollars were the right investment.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the study parameters were.
Ms. Fong stated there was a market assessment for Fiber to Premises and what it
would cost.
Council Member Shepherd stated if the demand was not there they might build it
anyway.
Ms. Fong stated they would share the study results and then they will formulate the
29 FIN
051711
plan. She felt fiber to the homes would probably not be attractive.
Mr. Keene stated if the goal was fiber to the premises they would have that updated. If
it was out of the question the stages of investments would be the next conversation.
Council Member Shepherd stated that the conversation about under grounding utilities
could be put behind this. The community wanted the answer to the feasibility of fiber.
Chair Scharff asked if they did under ground, if it would come from the electric fund.
Ms. Fong stated it would be jointly shared.
Chair Scharff asked if there was synergy with under grounding the fiber at the same
time to pay for all of it.
Mr. Marshall stated conduit would be put in for future fiber connections.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was to the curb.
Mr. Marshall stated in some cases yes.
Chair Scharff asked how expensive it would be to go from the curb to the house.
Mr. Marshall stated the expense would be getting the fiber to the homes from where
they are aggregated together.
Ms. Fong stated individual customer drops were expensive.
Chair Scharff stated it was different for where the customer was.
Mr. Keene stated this would come back to both the UAC and the Council.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Fiber Optic Fund.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the June report should go to Council when it goes to the UAC.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would provide that.
30 FIN
051711
4. Utilities Gas Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras provided an overview of the Utilities Gas Fund.
She said some of the revenue increases and decrease were, the revenue decrease was
$1.9 million that resulted from decrease in revenues due to lower market cost.
Expense decrease was $1.4 million due to the decrease in gas commodity purchases
that was offset by an increase in contract services for Crossboar Program Safety
Initiative. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures was $7.8 million
which was made up of the gas main replacement projects. The gas rate stabilization
reserves increased by $5 million with a projected balance of $8.2 million that was
above the maximum guideline of $19.3 million. The distribution RSR decreased by
$9.7 million with a projected ending balance of $.4 million which was below the
minimum guideline of $2.7 million. A transfer will be made at the end of the fiscal year
between the Supply RSR and the Distribution RSR to ensure that both balances were
between guideline ranges.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how the Crossboar Program tied into the gas main replacement.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated the Crossboar Program was
when a service lateral had board through a sewer line to the house and the gas main
was in the streets. They were two different pieces of the system.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Crossboar service was done through a contractor.
Ms. Fong stated some of the City’s work crew was involved.
City Manager, James Keene stated Staff was not able to scale the contract up to
complete the program in an expeditious manner and had a mixer in services.
Council Member Schmid asked if the demands of the Crossboar study caused the CIP
to fall by $500,000.
Mr. Marshall stated the department was working on gas main projects and was behind
due to staffing and the amount was reduced to allow catching up with the gas main
projects.
Council Member Schmid asked if there was concern of postponing the project.
Mr. Marshall stated there was always concerns about the integrity of the City’s
infrastructure and reason for replacements but did not feel there were any immediate
issues.
31 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid stated the equity transfer was growing by 15 percent and
asked why the dramatic increase.
Ms. Fong stated it was due to the lag reflected when the asset base was calculated.
Council Member Schmid asked if it was trend that was anticipated to continue.
Ms. Fong stated that would be correct.
Council Member Schmid stated it was a concern when it gets to be 15 percent of sales.
He said regarding commercial customers had an option of taking current prices or
signing a contract for 12 to 24 months. He asked how a 12-month contract compared
to rates that residential consumer were paying.
Ms. Fong stated a 12-month strip of gas reflected the forward market price for a 12-
month strip of gas. Latering strategy was used on residential customers where some
gas was purchased during the current year, some in prior years. Currently, it was
higher for residential customers than the 12-month strip.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was true for the last 18-months.
Ms. Fong stated probably true for the last 18-months.
Council Member Schmid asked if it was a problem in offering that to residential
customers.
Ms. Fong stated currently we have rate stability for residential customers
Chair Scharff asked if the demand side needed to be related to gas.
Ms. Fong stated they did.
Chair Scharff stated the compact flood light rebate program did not relate to gas, as
well as some other things.
Ms. Fong stated that was an error.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Gas Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
5. Utilities Wastewater Collection Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program, Rates, and Reserves
32 FIN
051711
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the fund. She said the fund had a
$.1 million decrease in revenue, expenses increased as $.2 million. The Capital
Improvement Program the 2012 expenditures totaled $4.3 million. The reserves for
the fund projected to end above the maximum guideline.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what other cities maintained laterals.
Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, Tomm Marshall stated most cities do not.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what the lower rates were attributed to.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated she did not have the exact
data available but Palo Alto had three utilities with a shared workforce.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the laterals as a liability.
Ms. Fong stated that they had reviewed the issue. As the economy dived they knew
this would not be successful. As the economy recovers, they would have to review the
timing issue.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had heard that the community was concerned
about the need to replace laterals. The homeowner should best know, and the City
should ease out of this with a long lead time as it would be in their best interest.
City Manager, James Keene stated when homeowners owned the responsibility no one
was building a fund to deal with it. In one sense the transition was a policy versus a
financial transition.
Chair Scharff confirmed the City maintained the lateral starting at the house, other
cities deal with it from the property line. He asked how the homeowner could request
an inspection.
Mr. Keene stated the Crossboar project was for the City to inspect them all. That data
could be used for this decision.
Chair Scharff stated residents could pay for someone to inspect it prior to the City
transitioning their responsibility. This could bust the budget with people requesting
replacements prior to the transition.
Ms. Fong stated preliminary thoughts would be to review the integrity of the laterals
prior to transition.
33 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how long it would take to cycle through all the laterals in the
City.
Mr. Marshall stated it would take a long time. It could be 50 years or more.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there were opportunities with the video. He asked what the
next step was.
Ms. Fong stated the program wasn’t ready to be designed now.
Council Member Schmid stated the City had some responsibility with the City owned
tree roots interfering with the laterals. He also said the City had some responsibilities
regarding backflow in the flood zones.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Wastewater Collection
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
6. Utilities Water Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program,
Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the Utilities Water Fund, operating
budget, CIP budget, rate and reserves. She reviewed revenue increases of $1.8 million
due to a rate increase of 12.5 percent plus changes to the line rates, expense increase
of $.3 million due to increase in water commodity purchases which was offset by a
decrease in the CIP of $4 million. The Water Fund CIP of 2012 expenditure of $4.9
million, the bulk was due to seismic water upgrades, estimated budget for project was
$9.7 million over next 3 years, estimated completion in 2014. The rate stabilization
reserve was projected to decrease $3.9 million to a total of 11.2 which was above the
guidelines of 4.6 million to 9.2 million. Future RSR balances would be lower due to
water commodity costs were expected to increase, more than double from 2011-2016,
seismic CIPS will also increase in FY 2013 and FY2014.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how Council’s policy of a 20 percent reduction in water
Efficiency affects the factored into the Water Fund.
Ms. Fong stated it was built into the forecast when the rates were calculated.
34 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh stated as far as the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC)
and pass through of the San Francisco Project, he asked whether the City exposed to
any budget increases due to the BAWSCA network.
Ms. Fong stated there was always that potential. The SFPUC and BAWSCA had both
been very careful with the construction and auditing of the project. SFPUC has been
very conservative with its rates.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked with the CIP Street Improvements approach, which into Fiscal
Year 11/12 and Fiscal Year 12/13 was the City spreading them out evenly or how was
it being distributed.
Ms. Fong stated yes there was cost consideration, it was often how best to coordinate
with the street resurfacing projects.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated even if there was a change in the purchase of water, would the
City see rate impacts when they reached the 20 percent efficiency as a lot of it was
going to capital costs and investments. Total costs for Water versus capital costs
wouldn’t change that much, so we were facing a different set of issues as compared to
the other funds.
Ms. Fong stated with the Water Fund everything was a fixed cost, even what the
SFPUC tried to recover through the water they delivered to their customers similar to
the Western Project on the Electric Fund, it was a fixed cost allocated over a certain
amount of units that were sold.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated we were in the same position with the Water Fund as the Refuse
Fund. As consumption changed and efficiency was achieved the same risks were
realized.
Council Member Schmid asked why none of the projects are in 2012, your goal is to
reach a certain mileage count each year but you don’t have an item for 2012 are you
skipping a year to save money
Mr. Marshall stated Staff was trying to catch up with CIP’s in the Water Fund
Council Member Schmid stated the work was continuing but it was with funds
transferred from previous years.
Mr. Keene stated there was one more item.
35 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid stated yes, although it was just design.
Council Member Shepherd stated she saw Staff was designing for Fiscal Year 2012 but
not constructing for two years after. She asked if it was typical to have a 2 year gap
between design and construction.
Mr. Marshall stated no, it was not typical. There were actually two water projects
occurring simultaneously, which were large projects. Usually the design would be
completed one year and construct the next.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was typical to have a project a project one year
and spend the money 2 years later.
Mr. Marshall stated yes, it was typical.
Mr. Keene stated it can be closer to one year if the contract was done towards the end
of one year and the next year the funds were spent, it could look like a 2 year gap.
Council Member Schmid what about the project # 208 water recycling project, it is a
large project, it starts with a 3 year design costs fairly substantial, what is the status
Ms. Fong we are going through the EIR process now. We intend to apply for grant
money when we are close to starting the project.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff was going to get Stanford to assist with funding
this as well as grants.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Council Member Schmid there are some options about how we treat the water and how
it comes out of our water treatment plant. He asked if they were looking at options on
changing how we treat our water as a part of this project and the salinity of it.
Ms. Fong stated she didn’t think this project doesn’t address that, this project has to do
with building the distribution for the recycled water.
Mr. Marshall stated this project included the salinity issue and it is also addressed in
the waste water rehabilitation project. They were trying to get salt water filtration into
the pipes that are having salt water problems.
36 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid asked if we were successful there would be a likelihood that
this would work.
Mr. Marshall stated it would improve the quality of the water. Mountain View was
working on their distribution also. The Water Treatment Plant was also trying to find
out where the salt water infiltration was.
Council Member Schmid stated Staff believed that $500,000 each year was a good
investment.
Ms. Fong stated that was only for the waste water distribution system and the salt
water infiltration project.
Chair Scharff stated concerned about the water recycling. Stanford did not want the
water because the salinity ws too high, and we were going to spend $25 million. We
had not solved the water intrusion problem, and we now had the highest water rates in
the area. He asked if water rates were expected to go up 12 percent.
Ms. Fong stated she believed it was a $50 million fund, but it would be recovered over
time and through bond financing. There may not be an impact on rates.
Chair Scharff asked if we were going to finance this with bonds.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if there were any reason why they could not start the design
process in 2013 when we have a better sense of the salinity.
Ms. Fong stated it would depend on what the EIR study comes back with. There was a
time when there was a lot of stimulus money, however now there is not. She said it
was up to the Committee if they should stop the investigation of the project.
Chair Scharff stated it was a $.5 million investigation.
Ms. Fong stated not all of the funds may need to be expended.
Chair Scharff asked if there was any reason why we could not wait for a year on this
and see where we were on the salinity problem. Our water rates were now the highest
in the area and he was concerned at the
37 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong stated she believed the salinity level was going down, but did not know exact
numbers.
Chair Scharff asked if there was any reason that delaying this project for a year would
hurt.
Ms. Fong stated the time frame was when Staff believed the need for water would be
reached.
Chair Scharff stated it had been mentioned how over burdened Staff was with projects
and by putting this one off it would alleviate some work load.
Ms. Fong stated our engineering Staff would be happy to not do the project, but it was
not really in the engineering shop right now.
Chair Scharff asked for Staff to provide background information on the Fiscal Year 2012
$2.7 million Palo Alto Water Tank Project
Ms. Fong stated there was reference in the project to a 1987 seismic evaluation
however, the recommendation Staff was giving was based on a 2010 study. There
were a number of concrete tanks that had structural issues that we want to fix.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation on the recent upgrade to the emergency water
tank on El Camino Real.
Ms. Fong stated the City financed the El Camino Real tank with bonds and all the
funds had not yet been spent.
Chair Scharff asked when the tank would be insatlled.
Ms. Fong stated in 2015.
Chair Scharff asked if we were using the tanks, how much have we lowered them.
Ms. Fong stated at least 1/3.
Mr. Marshall stated we have lowered the level in one tank due to the integrity of the
outer shell. The other issue was with the Mayfield Resevoir which had to be replaced.
There was another tank in the foothills that had foundation problems that needed to be
reinforced.
38 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff asked if by approving the budget request Staff would be taking care of
the issues.
Mr. Marshall stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if these repairs were a critical need.
Ms. Fong stated yes, all of the tanks along with the $2.5 million gallon resevoir on El
Camino.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if Montebello, Corte Madera, Dahl, Borunda were underground
tanks.
Mr. Marshall stated no, they were above ground. The Mayfield tank was partially
underground.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what the shell was.
Mr. Marshall stated some of the shell of the tanks were concrete with a banding around
them. Staff had found that the banding inside the shells were deteriorating.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if our resevoirs had roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated yes all of them did.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if while teh City was retrofitting would Staff look at the weight of
photo voltaic systems on the roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated that design had not yet been started, therefore it could be an
option.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the $10 million cost over the next 3 year fiscal years included
photo voltaic systems on the roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated not all of them were considered resevoirs.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on which ones would be considered for photo
voltaic.
Mr. Marshall stated that some of them had wood roofs, which might require
reingineering to place solar cells on them.
39 FIN
051711
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Water Fund and to postpone the CIP (WS-
07001) for the water recycling facility until 2014-2015.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez asked to put non departmental items, Council, Fire, Police department and
OES on May 24th. This would provide flexibility to be able to discuss this if time
permits. Staff has reserved May 25, 2011 as a possible date. The memo at places with
additional info about council and non department (Attachment 1) please review to save
time. Addtionally staff will prepare a memo with the potential cuts for public safety
and additional information on OES.
Vice Mayor Yeh inquired about the Ross Road CIP
Mr. Perez clarified that this was the project we had received emails about from citizens,
Vice Mayor Yes the bike boulevard
Mr. Perez please provide us with your questions and staff will address.
Vice Mayor Yeh as long as it is available at wrap up night that’s fine.
Mr. Perez confirms that the direction is to look at the emails and respond and provide
information on the Ross Road Bike Boulevard CIP.
Chair Scharff inquired do we need to schedule another meeting or can we schedule as
late as May 24th.
Mr. Perez indicated an additional meeting would only require 24 hour notice
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
1 FIN 05/24/11
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 24, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Council Member Schmid, Council Member Shepherd,
Absent: Council Member Yeh (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)
Oral Communications
Herb Borock spoke on the Fire Protection Services contract with Stanford
University, its level of services, its development through the years and its
various agreements dating back to the late 1970s.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez discussed the At-Places items
before the Committee which contained information regarding the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2012 Proposed Budget Hearing. Also included was a booklet Local Elected
Official Toolkit on Pension and Retiree Healthcare Benefit Funding.
NOTE: Meeting started with 1b and then 1c and then 1a.
Agenda Items
1. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Following 2012 Department
Budgets and Programs.
a. Fire Department Budget (continued from May 5). (continued to after 1c)
b. Follow-up on Preliminary Reductions to Public Safety if Compensation
Concessions are not materialized (separate staff report prepared by Friday,
May 20)
2 FIN 05/24/11
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez, noted if the compensation
concessions did not materialize, it was estimated the Police Department would
have to eliminate 11 officers to meet the $2 million budget target. This
presented definite community service impacts. He stressed this was a
preliminary analysis. He stated this was subject to a meet and confer with the
Police and Fire Departments.
Council Member Schmid asked if there were a series of alternatives prepared in
the event the Police and Fire union negotiations did not meet expectations. He
also asked for clarification on what it meant to meet and confer.
City Manager James Keene stated any alternative discussions they might have
were separate from the regular contract discussions, but part of the
requirements of labor relations. He noted to meet and confer was when they
sit down with the labor group and discuss issues. It does not mean to meet
and agree.
Chair Scharff stated it was their duty to sit down with the union in good faith to
talk and then move on.
Mr. Keene noted it had some negotiation aspects but was different in the sense
that there were no specific contract discussions.
Council Member Shepherd spoke to Item 1b. She did not want to see a repeat
of last year as concern in the community rises when there is talk of reducing
officers and how this affects community safety, crossing guards and the traffic
team. She hoped the second Resource Officer would be added back in. She
had concerns over the fact that there were more fire personnel than police
officers and wondered if this discrepancy was common in other jurisdictions.
She did not see that the agreement with Stanford University would fully
account for the increased number of Fire Department personnel.
Mr. Keene stated in his experience it was more common in other cities to have
more police than fire personnel.
Police Chief Dennis Burns stated the Stanford University contract had two
engines which accounted for 18 personnel members. He noted that no area
was free from cuts, since they were cutting 11 spots. He noted the cuts
proposed last year, including the Traffic Team. The Traffic team was currently
composed of one Sergeant and three Officers. This is the 8th out of 9th year
that they’ve made cuts, creating a situation with limited options. The nuts and
bolts of the operation is Patrol, they are not obligated to have a Traffic Team or
Investigations Unit.
3 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd understood the minimum staffing requirement with
the Fire Department and the contract with Stanford University. She requested
clarification on why it was still typical in many communities to have more police
than fire personnel on staff and asked how Palo Alto got in the position it was
in.
Mr. Keene stated it was generally true for a variety of reasons dependent on
the community, its geographical scale, population and crime levels. He noted
the City was in the position it was due to the location of Palo Alto’s fire stations
and the impact of incremental decision making.
Council Member Shepherd stated this was what she was trying to understand,
peeling back the incremental history of how this had all occurred.
Council Member Schmid directed everyone to the relative staffing figures on
page 37 of the Operating Budget and its notations for fulltime equivalents (FTE)
by union groups. After comparisons and some discussion, he noted that the
service needs and response for safety was relatively the same for Police and
Fire and yet Fire staffing was 40 percent higher for uniformed firefighters.
Mr. Burns stated he had not analyzed it in quite the same way. He noted Police
in Palo Alto were typically staffed one per vehicle, while Fire personnel are in
groups of three on a truck with equipment. Fire personnel also train in these
groups of three. He stated Stanford also contributed 30.3 percent towards the
Fire budget.
Council Member Schmid recalled the comment from the public stating that
conditions at Stanford University have changed since the 1970’s. He asked if
this has undergone any ongoing analysis as far as demand for services, and not
just the callouts but the requirements in the Stanford agreement.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated the Fire Services and Utilization
Study looked at the contract in terms of what equipment and personnel was
required, in particular in relation to overtime, slack, and backfill. She noted
they review whether or not they are recouping costs. It was on their ongoing
list of things to do, to reevaluate this based on changes, station locations,
agreements, level of service to the city, and also to Stanford’s campus changes.
Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Catherine Capriles, stated this was one of the pieces
they have been asked to look at and have begun to explore. A full analysis had
4 FIN 05/24/11
not yet been done. It was important to remember they review the contract
regularly.
Council Member Schmid had further comments about staffing of uniformed
personnel, noting there were times of the day where minimum staffing was not
an efficient utilization of their resources. He asked if it was appropriate to
continue asking the Police Department to make further staffing cutbacks.
Ms. Antil noted if they were not successful in gaining the concessions for
employee benefits and pay, the dollars had to come from somewhere. She
noted the Fire Department Utilization Study showed an opportunity to make
some changes based on consolidation and merging of stations, but it would
take some changes in infrastructure as well. Minimum staffing issues still
came into play as far as the union was concerned. Some alternatives included
strategic staffing, cross-staffing, merging of staffing, all which allowed the
reduction of resources and people. Six sworn positions were indicated in the
study.
Council Member Schmid asked if staffing issues were a meet and confer or
contract negotiations.
Ms. Antil stated in theory you could sit down and bargain with likely changes or
proposals. However, the Chief had noted broader discussion and analysis was
essential. The Fire Department brought forth the preference to get the dollars
needed in the form of the union concessions and then work on utilization.
Mr. Keene stated it was not his recommendation to eliminate 11 Police Officers
or make changes in the Fire Department. Staff had the alternative
recommendation to seek concessions. Personnel costs were what comprised
the Public Safety budgets; Spending could not be reduced without cutting
personnel costs. They can take the approach of reducing the costs across the
board with salary and benefits negotiations with savings and concessions.
Otherwise, they were forced to eliminate positions. There were impacts for
both choices, but the significant impacts came with the personnel reductions in
such a way that they cannot maintain services by reorganizing the Staff that
was left.
Chair Scharff remained optimistic that the labor discussions and concessions
would be achieved. It was his understanding that the CIP budget held funds for
refurbishment of fire stations. He suggested that maybe that money could be
used to; for instance, replace a traffic officer back on the scene versus a
refurbishing expense.
5 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene stated they had obviously come into a situation where capital
spending was in a triage environment. They were looking at stop gaps for the
short-term until they could figure out the best long-term approach. He noted
Staff worked hard on the recommendations and tried to allocate funds to cut
costs in Police and Fire. They applied their theories based on ballpark
concession figures. He noted different situations will arise when the cuts and
service impacts become apparent.
Council Member Schmid stated they were driving towards a sustainable budget
and were being asked to vote and recommend a budget starting July 1st. He
asked what the timing was, six months or some other time period, on when
they would know more.
Mr. Keene stated if the Committee adopted their recommendations, he
suggested a first quarter check-in with Council. He said going past the second
quarter would make an adaptation more difficult. It was then discussed that
binding arbitration discussions occur in September and October with results
coming back in January.
Mr. Perez noted their policy decisions on the contribution to retiree medical, by
practice; the contribution was not made until the end of the fiscal year. That
couple of million dollars was an option for Council to consider the best
methodology to reduce any liability. There were discussions of this as they
have quarterly reviews. If they were not meeting targets, they could make
other operational adjustments across departments.
Mr. Keene stated these choices surfaced again because they were in this triage
position, trying to figure out what to do short-term in the budget process while
looking for long-term strategies.
Chair Scharff said he did not like using these funds in that manner.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
c. Office of Emergency Services Recommendations (separate staff report
prepared by Friday, May 20)
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez reiterated they had put a
placeholder of a $1 million in the Proposed Budget that was published.
City Manager, James Keene noted there was the baseline funding in the Fire
Department Budget, which was related to Emergency Services. This was why
they were doing this prior to the other budget discussions.
6 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Perez noted corrections on several slides, as well as a memo dated May
20th/1c Office of Emergency Services (OES) with their recommendations that
had some proposed changes and mathematical corrections.
Chief of Police, Dennis Burns reviewed the three recommendations that the
Police and Fire Department offered based on the suggestions the consultant
team proposed. These included increasing the Office of Emergency Services
(OES) Staff to four members with the function reporting to the City Manager,
implementation of a plan to improve the Emergency Operations Center and
Consolidation of the information from the technical studies and additional
analyses. He noted the OES was currently situated within the Fire Department.
The Fiscal (FY) 2012 Budget was $457,000 for salary and non-salary expenses.
He reviewed the personnel recommendations and costs. He discussed senior
management recruitment and selection, recruitment and position fulfillments.
He discussed non-salary costs for program and operations as well as OES study
recommendations. He reviewed the cost summary for total staff and expenses,
total proposed new OES expenses, existing OES budget with Fire, and the
grand total for new and existing expenses. Examples of OES efforts were
summarized including an update of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and
the development and implementation of training for City Staff and family
emergency preparedness, the enhancement of interoperable communications
with virtual consolidations of dispatch centers. He also discussed the
development training and exercise plan implementation for the Foothills Fire
Management Plan, the expansion of the Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT), the implementation of the Medical Reserve Corp, holding community
exercises and seeking grant funding for program improvements.
Mr. Perez recapped Staff’s recommendations regarding the million-dollar
placeholder.
Mr. Keene stated the total in both accounts in the base budget presented had a
surplus that can be returned during budget discussions. When the one-time
expenses were taken out, they were proposing an ongoing addition as opposed
to a $1 million annual ongoing addition.
Chair Scharff clarified this was a $0.5 million dollar cost on an ongoing basis.
Council Member Shepherd stated the million-dollar place holder was actually a
half-million dollar place holder because the position was taken out of Fire and
moved to Operations.
7 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene stated this $1 million was actually new, but in an ongoing way it
became only $0.5 million.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the Medical Reserve Corp involved.
Mr. Burns stated the Corp was comprised of physicians and physician’s
assistants and the like who volunteer with the City and who were not already
otherwise involved in activities with their practices or hospitals.
Council Member Schmid appreciated the work on this budget. He was very
excited to see some leveraging of the volunteer base as it was an important
resource for the City and this department.
Chair Scharff questioned whether they were prematurely planning on hiring an
OES Budget Director.
Mr. Keene stated they had not made a final determination and recommendation
on how to proceed on Public Safety versus Police, Fire and a Fire Chief. He did
not think the OES Director position was something that could be undertaken by
the Fire Chief. He noted the expectations of the OES Director were broader.
Chair Scharff stated regarding structural expenses, perhaps there were
alternative methods that could be implemented. As an example, maybe they
would rather have that one more officer on the street than a new OES director,
and again he was only giving this as an example of how they might have to
review a variety of options during these difficult times.
Mr. Keene stated these were all good points. He agreed as well that there was
a tremendous network of community volunteers and that this and the
emergency preparedness components were at risk of losing steam without the
addition of the OES Director. He noted he, the Fire Chief and various
community leaders have been discussing this ongoing, realizing it was
important to support and leverage what they have in order to move forward
successfully.
Council Member Schmid agreed the momentum was important. He also
thought the one-time study funds were optional.
Chair Scharff asked if maybe they could follow up on the one-time study funds
and whether or not they could slow down on that.
Mr. Keene said it was important to keep that aspect in, but it was something
that was expendable. They did not, however, need to make that decision
8 FIN 05/24/11
currently. He stressed they had made a commitment to the community for
emergency preparedness, planning, integration of plans and data.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification of what should be included in the Motion.
Mr. Keene noted the new position in OES was a separate budget. If the
Committee desired, they could direct Staff to reallocate. He suggested they
keep it in the Fire Department Budget and as they implement and bring it back
to Council.
Council Member Shepherd saw no reason not to move forward quickly to get
the position filled.
Mr. Perez reminded to the Committee that Staff would adjust the
reimbursement from Stanford University’s agreement, with any changes to Fire,
so that these calculations would be included in the Motion.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the firefighter’s pension and other
compensation costs were included in Stanford’s reimbursements.
Mr. Perez stated the 30.3 percent reimbursement included pension plans.
a. Fire Department Budget (continued from May 5).
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Fire Department
Budget and come back to the Finance Committee in September with an update
on the tentative negotiations and agreements including the Office of Emergency
Services initiative but postponing this one-time spending until after the
September Meeting.
Chair Scharff asked if they would have this $335,000 before September.
Mr. Keene stated no spending occurred before the first quarter, so the question
was about sequestering these funds. The Motion was therefore appropriate as
it stood.
Chair Scharff noted even if that was not in the Motion, Staff would need to
return to Council with a Consent item.
Mr. Keene stated the contract award process occurred first on those sorts of
items. Their first efforts were towards recruitment of the Director of Emergency
Services.
9 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff wanted to be clear that the Emergency Preparation language was
in the Motion.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to see this move forward with them coming
back on Consent regarding the $335,000 as it continued to move on.
Mr. Keene noted the way he interpreted their Motion was, given the uncertainty
on how to achieve the goals for the FY 2012 budget, rather than committing to
not spending the money prior to the first quarter, they had instead asked for a
first quarter check-in. The flipside to the Motion was, they still do not spend
the money, but at the first quarter check-in the Council had full latitude to
make recommendations or adjustments as they saw fit. He wanted to be sure
they understand both positions and sides to the Motion. Some other plans may
be at risk if they do not make progress on some of their goals, which Council
Member Schmid had also alluded to in his discussions.
Council Member Schmid stated the critical point was not to spend a huge
amount on consulting contracts before the new director was in place. Instead
they were putting the money in the budget and proceeding with caution.
Mr. Keene stated it was not a matter of not being in the budget. They were
putting an asterisk next to the funds reminding the City Manager not to proceed
with spending of these funds, even with the appropriation, until the first quarter
check-in.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh Abstained
d. Public Works Department Budget – General Fund Operating Budget
Acting Public Works, Mike Sartor, gave a presentation regarding restructuring of
Public Works Department. He reviewed the current six divisions in the Public
Works Department. He then reviewed the consolidation of these into three
areas, which would be more efficient and eliminate redundancies. The three
remaining divisions included Environmental Services, Engineering Services and
Public Services. He detailed the functions and Management Staff under each
service area. He discussed the cost benefits of the restructuring, vacancies,
retirements, consolidations and reorganizations, which netted savings of nearly
$400,000. This was an ongoing structural change for the department.
Chair Scharff asked why refuse was under Environmental Services and not
Public Works. He reiterated the Zero Waste Program brought in zero dollars
and was poorly managed.
10 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Sartor stated the overriding consideration was having the refuse and the
solid waste and water quality control plant working in a similar arena. The plan
was to have the Director of this division streamline these programs, bringing
synergy to the programs under this umbrella.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on what happened next with the Refuse
Fund after the landfill closed, including issues regarding the Green Waste
contract.
Mr. Sartor discussed the Zero Waste Program. The Solid Waste Manager was
set to manage the Zero Waste Program outreach to the public and also work
with the Refuse Fund and its future. He noted landfills do not actually fully
close and must meet environmental compliance issues and capital functions for
at least 30 years.
Chair Scharff asked if the maintenance management of the landfill for the 30
years out came from the Refuse Fund or the Parks Fund.
Mr. Sartor stated the Refuse Fund continued the financial responsibility for this
in accordance with California State Law.
Council Member Shepherd questioned whether Environmental Services was the
appropriate language for a department that handled refuse and that it would
take the public some time to get used to it. She agreed the synergy was
important but wondered if there was a better title for the division.
Mr. Sartor agreed it did take time to get used to the language but it was a
model that San Jose was using, as well as other cities. He noted everything
was a work in progress and they were open to improvements.
Mr. Keene stated many communities had departments of environmental quality
or management. He stated the staffing structure was considered and any
advances they could make in restructuring four divisions down to three, while
still having the appropriate and effective leadership at the top tier. He felt they
had come up with the right combination and suggested they implement it on a
trial basis.
Council Member Yeh agreed, and noted it reminded him of certain grad school
practices where they consolidate and streamline, which was the exciting part.
He asked where they go beyond the test basis, and if there was going to be a
later check-in point on how this reorganization was working out.
11 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene clarified the question was not about the net structure, because they
were recommending eliminating positions and cost savings. Staff wanted the
Committee to know that they would be coming back with ongoing conversations
on how the new structure was working. They would not, however,
automatically come back, so the Committee might make that suggestion for a
time once budget talks are completed.
Chair Scharff fully agreed that a solvent Refuse Fund was of great importance
for the future. Also of importance was their focus on environmental issues in
this reorganization.
Mr. Keene noted no matter what they called it, it had to be solvent, it had to
make sense, the charges had to be appropriate and it had to work.
Mr. Sartor agreed the Refuse Fund and its functionality was their number one
priority. They recently hired and promoted a Solid Waste Manager for this
reason.
Council Member Yeh stressed it was encouraging to see the reorganization and
the goals moving in the right direction in Public Works.
Council Member Schmid agreed the Refuse Fund needed a strong economic
angle. He appreciated the restructuring and the leaner view of Public Works.
He looked to page 193 of the Operating Budget, and the Budget Changes for
the last one or two years where Administration goes up but Streets, Trees and
Structures was going down. He did not see this as going leaner, and asked for
an explanation.
Mr. Perez stated part of what they wanted to do was give an overview of the
structuring first, but they would look into his question further.
Chair Scharff asked, if they had an Environmental Services Department, if the
Office of Sustainability should be there as well. Then all the synergies would be
together. He suggested they consider this at some point.
Mr. Keene took note of this suggestion. He also spoke about the urban forestry
aspects of Public Works, which were also incorporated in the restructuring.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras answered the previous question by
Council Member Schmid about Administrative costs being much higher than
those of Streets, Trees and Structures in the last several years. She stated this
was due to an increase in benefits and an increase in information technology
charges. In previous presentations these were city wide. She stated others
12 FIN 05/24/11
had to do with some of the reorganization plans in Public Works. She continued
with a PowerPoint overview of the General Fund Operating Budget for FY 2012
with a department summary for the Public Works General Fund operating
budget including revenue increases and decreases. She summarized the
amendments to the proposed.
Council Member Schmid spoke regarding Urban Forestry and the arborist
positions.
Mr. Sartor noted they had worked very closely with Planning and the City
Manager, as well as with the Development Center and the Blueprint Initiative
collectively as the City consolidated responses and reviews on private
development. This was what drove bringing an arborist into the group. The
primary function was to serve the development community. This arborist will
be a liaison to all departments. The other arborist position in Public Works was
related to street trees and private developments. That position was being
elevated to the senior level position of Urban Forester and would now be part of
the Urban Forestry Master Plan. They will not only manage the tree trimming
crews, line clearing operations with Utilities, but also out in the community
working on canopies and the like.
Council Member Schmid noted this was a more strategic tree plan, but he asked
if they were asking one person to do the job of two people.
Mr. Sartor stated this was not the case. The Planning Arborist would in fact
have a project manager on staff as well.
Ms. Antil stated the piece that was missing in the past was the City never had
an Urban Forester to begin with, so that person was the missing link. With the
retirement of an arborist, they could look at reorganizing and handling it in a
way where it’s two positions staying as two positions with one elevated, in a
sense, to that of Urban Forester.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification, on the new organization charting, which
groups fit under which funds versus those, which had their own independent
enterprise funding or separate funds.
Mr. Sartor stated the Environmental Services Division was funded by the Waste
Water Treatment and Refuse Fund. Engineering Services received funding from
the General and Storm Drain Fund. Public Services was funded through the
General Fund, Refuse Fund, Storm Drain and Vehicle Replacement Funds.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted it made a difference to be able to look at the chart and
13 FIN 05/24/11
see the organization and the funding cohesively.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had discussed in earlier meetings the need to make
changes to better reflect this.
Mr. Keene noted they were getting some of the basic budget process out of the
way in the first sessions, the allocation models, the fluctuations, performance
measures, before they put in any aggregation overlays in, but they would do
this in future discussions.
Council Member Yeh stated Palo Alto has always been acknowledged for their
budget work. He asked if the maintenance team had considered a “pothole
blitz” process versus their scheduled repair process. He asked as well if
sending in photos of repair areas was helpful or a hindrance in their processes.
Fleet Manager, Paul Dornell spoke regarding the pothole repair process. He
noted repair notices were batched and crews went out every other Friday. Tags
were gathered and crews go out with a full day’s work. He noted he was
familiar with the “blitz” way of doing it but currently they were keeping up, with
their goal of filling potholes within 15 days of their reporting. He stated input
from the public was always helpful not only for potholes but also downed trees,
storm drain and other repair issues. They had an inbox for this.
Mr. Keene noted the question became more of whether or not using the mobile
platform affected expectation or compounded the batching process.
Council Member Yeh asked for clarification on the Capital Improvement Projects
in Public Works and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) review
of this budget, compliance and how this fit in with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sartor stated the P&TC was frustrated with their role in implementing the
Comprehensive Plan rather than just making sure the CIP program is in
compliance with the plan.
Mr. Keene stated the tension was driven by the fact that there was not much
money in the Capital Budget.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on how much of this discussion has
actually occurred with the P&TC.
Mr. Sartor stated they informed the PTC of the work of the Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and they would like to have a Study Session with
14 FIN 05/24/11
the IBRC possibly in July.
Council Member Schmid stated this was not about allocating dollars but
establishing priorities. He asked if it made sense to meet late in the fall.
Mr. Sartor stated they would have that opportunity this fall because the IBRC
would have draft reporting at a Study Session in September. The P&TC could
also participate in this.
Chair Scharff stated it was difficult as a committee to put a rubberstamp on CIP
proposals if they did not understand what went into what they are seeing in the
end discussions. He noted it would be helpful to have some discussion time
going into things to at least see what was important and what options existed..
In this way they would better understand what they were looking at and
eventually recommending in their process.
Mr. Perez went over the various logistics of the PTC discussions and how the
information was out there in November, February, April and May, but there was
no schedule discussion time with the Committee about these meetings or this
information. There was a budget meeting in October through November,
December for projects requested by Departments.
Mr. Keene suggested they could try meeting with the Finance Committee in
February to share some of this information going in.
Chair Scharff agreed February or March might be a good time for this type of
meeting.
Mr. Perez stated the P&TC shared in the frustration that there was no general
list or information about recommended versus not recommended projects.
Mr. Keene stated he did not have an issue with any of this, but he did not want
them to derail in the requirement that the City Manager present the Proposed
Budget to the City Council.
Council Member Yeh stated they were not short-circuiting the budget process
but weighing in strategically. He agreed a master list was needed.
Mr. Keene discussed the challenges behind putting the budget together and
meeting deadlines. He understood the intent of their proposal but wanted to
fully understand it in process.
Chair Scharff stated with there being more question the budget
15 FIN 05/24/11
recommendation process, it was clear there needed to be another meeting for
clarification purposes.
Council Member Schmid agreed with the City Manager’s perspective that they
should not micromanage the people that were already managing the budget
process. He discussed the differences between micromanaging and strategic
planning.
Mr. Keene stated from a practical standpoint the January, February or March
early discussion process made more sense than October or November when
Staff would have already started working on budget recommendations.
Council Member Shepherd agreed the transfer of knowledge was important and
part of their job was to work through the layers of information and inform the
public as well.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the request was not to add more to the IBRC but to have
an opportunity in September for Staff to return with a proposed process.
Mr. Keene stated November would probably be the best time, but in this year it
would be a different dynamic because the IBRC was coming forward.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public
Works Department Budget – General Fund Operating Budget
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarity on the $3.3 million dollars for
engineering and what this was spent on.
Mr. Sartor gave a broad view of the expenditures in Engineering for the
Operating Budget in the various programs of streets, structures, private
development, parks and open space. A certain number of engineers were also
assigned to the Capital Fund, which was set up when the Infrastructure
Management Plan was established. They were spread through the Operating
Budget and the Capital Fund. He noted they all work in the Engineering
Division.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the CIP budget revenues.
16 FIN 05/24/11
Sr. Budget Manager, Sharon McWay, stated the Capital Program salaries
included employees from all departments. Engineering was the Engineering
Division of Public Works, which mostly was the private development section.
Council Member Shepherd said they work with homeowners or businesses,
which bring in revenues from fees. She asked if the IBRC was looking at the
pull out of the engineers as part of their scope.
Mr. Sartor asked if she was looking at the operating page or the capital page.
The Capital Budget was not the development section rather it was the
Engineering Staff assigned to capital projects from all General Fund
departments.
Council Member SHEPARD stated Staff did not spend money from their own
departmental budget, but it was still 20 - 25 percent of the $10 million spent
overall. .
Mr. Keene stated the 25 percent corresponds more directly to the annual
infrastructure reserve transfer. The Capital Budget was larger than that, so the
percentage was actually a lower percentage.
Mr. Sartor stated in addition to the transfer they have a gas tax transfer, a
bond program for the libraries, grant money from the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA), as well as monies from private donors and friends’ groups.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was a CIP budget, on page 25, growing
by percentages, and was the IBRC taking a look at these equations. She asked
if Staff knew the dollar amount for infrastructure repairs.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff was aware of staffing costs for infrastructure repairs,
staffing, and design.
Council Member Shepherd said it was decided not to spread this across
projects.
Mr. Keene stated on page 136 there were multiyear allocations for salaries and
benefits, roughly inflated over a five-year period. He asked for clarification on
this.
Ms. McWay stated they were allocated over cost centers for structures, grounds
and streets. The item was charged to the project involved.
17 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd stated this does not include extra staff time for
department heads in the libraries, but she was looking for better clarification
and she said a large number like that should be detailed out and matched with
the project.
Mr. Sartor stated they did not track the actual time spent by Engineering Staff
spent on a project.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
e. Public works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Storm Drainage
(includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Vice Chair, Stepheny McGraw, Storm Drain Oversight Committee, stated the
presented budget had been reviewed and agreed upon. She summarized some
of their hopes for the budgeted funds.
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras provided a presentation on the Public
Works Storm Drain Fund’s Operating Budget including revenue decreases of
$243,000. She discussed the expenses for the Storm Drain Funds, which
included the Operating and Capital budgets as well. Budget amendments were
discussed. She recapped the status of the CIP projects in the storm drain fund,
which included seven projects. The Capital Improvement Program, Storm Drain
Fund and projects were summarized.
Council Member Schmid appreciated the response to his questions. He said it
was difficult to understand since there are no revenue numbers in any of the
materials they received. He noted the table given to them by the Storm Drain
Committee was confusing. He asked for clarification.
Sr. Engineer, Joe Teresi stated the figures at the top of the table he received
from the oversight committee were the 2005 estimates, a snapshot in time.
The financial model was where they assumed a rate of inflation at 3 percent,
where it would take $19 million to finish in 12 years. In the early years the
costs escalated by far greater amounts and it was now estimated that it would
cost $24 million. Looking at their financial model, they believe they will have
adequate revenue to fund the seven projects. Based on whatever rate of
inflation they assume in their model, it fluctuates depending on the
compounding of the interest. They are cautiously optimistic about the fund,
and continuing projects.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the Southgate Project.
18 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Teresi stated runoff was directed to a single inlet, which worked at first
development. There was no constant slope at this point. The original plan was
a storm drain network. However, permeable pavement, rain gardens and
resurfacing to save money was suggested to achieve the ultimate goal of
proper drainage and flow. He described cisterns versus water pipes.
Council Member Shepherd stated it was important to be clear on this
information as the neighborhood would definitely be asking questions on this.
Mr. Teresi stated they would definitely be informing the neighborhood, but
there would be requests for proposals and feasibility studies prior.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council
Member Shepherd, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the
Enterprise Funds: Storm Drainage (includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program and Reserves)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
f. Public works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Refuse (includes
Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras gave a presentation on the details of the
Refuse Fund including revenue decreases. She recapped Staff’s proposed
amendments and the fund’s deficits; however, the state will meet the landfill
closure and post closure liabilities. She also reviewed staffing proposals in
relationship to closing the landfill. These positions will be terminated at
midyear. She discussed the fund’s expenditure increases, which were mainly
due to the landfill closure project. There was one amendment for contract
services at the Smart Station related to the landfill closure. She recapped
staffing changes. Capital Improvements activities were discussed within the
fund. She discussed the fund’s RSR balance.
Acting Director of Public Works Mike Sartor spoke on the preliminary
recommendations for the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study and the ideas they
were thought about. They had recommended that the Committee approve the
budget in concept assuming that the rate increases expire in October. In June,
with the Committee recommendations, this would be the case that 6 percent for
residents and 9 percent for commercial will expire in October. They will come
back in July with some options for correcting that, including two or three
options for increasing rates. The basis will be to retain the 6 and 9 percent,
carry those forward and add additional increases to both residential and
commercial rates. The timeline was discussed for the Refuse Fund.
19 FIN 05/24/11
Ms. Paras finished the presentation with a summary of what had been
presented to the Committee thus far in rate increases and changes without the
Refuse Fund increases.
Council Member Schmid spoke about how they were paying for services now
that had occurred in the past. He did not think rate increases were an effective
way of handling this and thought that this was how they got in the current
predicament.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the Green Waste contract.
Solid Waste Manager, Brad Eggleston stated in the $2.4 million there was a
$1.6 million decrease in the Green Waste contract, and then the $1.6 million
was added back, so then $1.8 was added back for a difference of $1.2
million.
Vice Mayor Yeh wanted to make sure that the Green Waste contract remained
as part of the review in the continuing timeline as far as reviewing level of
service and cost of service.
Mr. Eggleston stated they had begun discussions with Green Waste on ways to
decrease expenses. In the short-term, for FY 2012, they were looking at
operational expense reductions at the recycling center and what to do with the
center when the landfill closes. They were also in the process of factoring
customer outreach into their timeline and discussions with Green Waste.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the budget numbers for the Smart
Station.
Mr. Eggleston stated the initial budget amount was for a midyear projection.
Smart Station prepared a budget and they based their original number from
what they received in January. Basically, the Smart Station was charging more
than was originally anticipated.
Chair Scharff stated they were also paying $600,000 a year or more for but not
using Kirby Canyon.
Mr. Eggleston stated the put-or-pay cost for Kirby Canyon was slightly less than
that but he was not sure exactly. He stated they would be bringing information
on this in their presentation in July.
20 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff there was also some money still being spent on a Smart Station
for put-or-pay.
Mr. Eggleston said Staff would bring that information back to the Committee.
Chair Scharff noted then there were two numbers where they were paying for
things they were not using, and hoped they would come back with those
numbers then in July. At Kirby Canyon could they sell off that used capacity
and it was indicated that there was no interest in this, but he heard rumors that
communities were looking for refuse space.
Mr. Sartor stated this was a good point and a way to alleviate contractual
obligations. They intended to research this.
Chair Scharff discussed his concerns over language about overall goals
extending out five to ten years, which was not allowed under Proposition 218.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated some of the five to
ten year goals had to do with some conservation and incentive-based pricing
that will occur in the future of the refuse world.
Chair Scharff reiterated it was not legal to go out beyond three or five years.
Mr. Bobel noted they would return in July with more options on how to reduce
the discrepancies between residential and commercial rates structures.
Mr. Sartor stated they will also modify their goals to meet the three to five year
timeframes.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public works
Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Refuse (includes Operating Budget,
Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Council Member Shepherd looked forward to more work being done on the Zero
Waste program. She agreed with the goals and looked forward to hearing back
from them in July. She noted helping the community understand that recycling
came with a cost was going to be of importance.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to
request Staff come back with rate ideas tailored towards a financially
sustainable rate base.
21 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member asked how that was different to what was coming back in July.
Mr. Sartor stated they were looking at a sustainable rate structure and expense
reductions which started last fall with the closure of the landfill.
Chair Scharff noted the many ways this program was not currently sustainable
and that the twin goal was to make the environmental goal to be zero waste
but also sustainable.
City Manager, James Keene stated it was hard to craft something that said they
were charging more for less service.
Mr. Sartor noted a sustainable model meant no free curbside cans for anything.
Outreach was going to be of great importance to get this across.
Council Member Schmid note the Water Fund had undergone similar problems
and debate in order to finally reach the idea of a flat fee across the board for all
services with incentives.
Mr. Sartor took feedback about every other week service and other options and
noted he would check codes and get back to the Committee on these issues.
Mr. Bobel noted they are in discussions on this as well as separating out organic
items making it possible to leave other “dry” garbage out longer for pickups.
Council Member Shepherd and Vice Mayor Yeh agreed that the additional
information in July would be helpful.
Mr. Bobel discussed the bulk of what they would continue to look at including
the revenue and also the options in dealing with the residential versus
commercial rates, the smaller cans, minimums and maximums. He appreciated
the Amendment to the Motion but noted some of the Green Waste ideas were
longer term discussions.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 4-0.
g. Public Works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Wastewater
Treatment (includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and
Reserves)
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras discussed the revenue increases for the
fund, expense decreases and the increase in salaries and benefits due to the
restructuring in Public Works. There were no CIP expenditures in 2012.
22 FIN 05/24/11
Ongoing projects are making use of funds from prior years. She recapped
where things stood with the Waste Water Treatment Fund reserves, which were
in the positives.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the Ballot Measure coming forward for
the anaerobic digester and any impacts to the proposed budget.
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor stated nothing was included the
current budget. If the vote undedicated the land adjacent to the treatment
plant, they would be looking at options that involved the incineration process at
the treatment plant. All was dependent on Council’s direction.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there were any potential amounts as to what this might
entail. He asked if there was an interim report prior to the Master Plan next
summer.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated he had no potential
estimates at this time. He did point out that it did help that they were
midstream in their long term planning for the plant. There was no interim
report, but there is was an ARI study.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public Works Department Budget –
Enterprise Funds: Wastewater Treatment (includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program and Reserves)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
h. Public works Department Budget – Internal Service Funds: Vehicle
Replacement/Maintenance (includes Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Program)
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor gave a presentation and
introduction overview of the vehicle replacement plan, its recommendations,
reductions, savings, evaluations and re-evaluations. They are in the process of
a comprehensive review of the City’s Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance
and Replacement Policy. They were also establishing fully automated pool
reservation systems. They are also exploring pool lease programs and
contracts. He discussed the intentions and the advantages to these leasing
programs. The fleet database, parts and supply were discussed.
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras went over the details of the Vehicle
Maintenance and Replacement Fund including revenue decreases and expense
23 FIN 05/24/11
decreases. Budget amendments were also discussed. She summarized the CIP
and that zero dollars are budgeted for 2012. Amendments will be made as
needed and reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee.
Council Member Shepherd stated it tightened up nicely, looked to outsourcing
and so she thought that it was appropriate for leasing or outsourcing.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the decrease in salvage revenue.
Fleet Manager, Keith Lahaie stated part of the reason for decrease, was that
they had not replaced vehicles since the replacement program was restricted.
The 26 surplus vehicles had also not yet sold. If they expand the motor pool,
they will also not sell those vehicles this year.
Mr. Sartor stated in answer to the Committee members’ questions, noted that
outsourcing was feasible and they would get back to the Committee on this in
the future.
City Manager, James Keene stated there were different scales and levels of this
partial and/or complete, as far as the analysis of what will work for the city.
Chair Scharff asked how the compressed natural gas pilot program is working
out.
Mr. Sartor gave an overview of this process.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public works Department
Budget – Internal Service Funds: Vehicle Replacement/Maintenance (includes
Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Chair Scharff amendment that you do come back with options on the
outsourcing from complete to partial to or leasing.
Mr. Sartor clarified Staff would not be looking to outsource Fire or Police but
transport and pool vehicles.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could return with an initial or preliminary scope for the
Committee to review and then start the analysis.
i. Non-Departmental Budget
24 FIN 05/24/11
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras recapped the City Council Proposed
Budget for FY 2012 which included various placeholders which Staff had
incorporated to bridge the budget gaps; $4.3 million in Public Safety
concessions, $1 million in attrition savings for Staffing vacancies in the General
Fund, $1.1 million for funding for the retiree ARCarc in non-departmental and
an anticipated pension increase. The subtotal for salaries and benefits was a
negative $2.9 million. She added included in the non-departmental budget was
funding for the Office of Emergency Services (OES) program, since not all of
the funding was utilized there was a return to the Budget Stabilization Reserve
(BSR) of $167,000, also included was rent for land (rent paid to Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) for the train depot) of $156,000, also included
in this section are City paid property tax for rentals of El Camino Park and
various rentals in San Mateo County and Stanford Substation. She stated there
were various contingency accounts; City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Council and new to Fiscal Year 2012 was an Innovation Contingency Fund.
Council Member Shepherd asked what train depot the City was paying rent for.
Ms. Paras stated it was the Caltrain station at University Avenue where Café del
Dodge was located.
Council Member Shepherd asked who owned the train station.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated Stanford
owned the station.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the City was renting the entire station for
a café.
Mr. Perez stated the City was renting from Stanford and then subleased to VTA,
essentially it was a pass-through. He noted Staff was working on exiting the
City from the agreement so they were not part of the third party due to the
majority of the usage being VTA.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the train station was being rented for
originally from Stanford.
Mr. Perez stated he would need to research and get back to the Committee. He
recalled a portion had been used by the City for bicycle storage.
Chair Scharff stated when Staff returned he requested information on the date
the lease expired.
25 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Perez stated he recalled the lease expired within the next couple of years
and that was why Staff was working on getting out of the agreement to allow
VTA and Stanford to coordinate without the City’s involvement.
Chair Scharff asked if there was an issue with the City pulling out of the
agreement by Stanford.
Mr. Perez stated no, it was more there was an enforceable lease and the City
was fortunate that VTA needed the space and they were able to pick-up the
cost.
Council Member Schmid asked about the $310,000 for the Management
Compensation Study.
Mr. Perez stated the amount shown had been carried for 5 years and Council
had approved it at that time. He stated Staff could provide the specific fiscal
year if requested. The City Manager at that time recommended Staff set
funding aside for when the review of the classification of the Management and
Professional benchmarking was done.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the Study had been completed.
Mr. Perez stated it has not.
City Manager, James Keene stated the Study had been essentially completed
although was not ready to be fully implemented. It was currently in the
beginning stages of review by the departments.
Council Member Schmid stated the proposed budget implied there was
$310,000 each year rather than being passed on.
Mr. Perez stated that was not the function and Staff would add a notation for
clarification.
Mr. Keene clarified the amount was being re-appropriated each year and not
expended.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated Public Safety concessions were listed under the non-
departmental budget and he asked what non-departmental referred to.
Mr. Perez stated initially non-departmental was used as a budget tool as a place
holder for expenses that had yet to be realized. He stated the manner in which
26 FIN 05/24/11
Staff viewed the concessions for Public Safety were they did not want to
decrease the Fire Department budget per se because there were no assurances
of the concessions. He clarified if Staff reduced the Fire Department budget, the
revenue reimbursement from Stanford would need to be reduced by 30.3
percent.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there was no mention of the Cubberley Community
Center in the presentation.
Mr. Perez stated Cubberley should have been mentioned. He stated Staff could
note which items were ongoing or one-time items which may help the
Committee understand. He noted the Cubberley amount included the lease and
the covenant not to develop.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated it was an item that would be incurred in 2011/12.
Mr. Perez stated right now, the City had an agreement with the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) that had an option that the City must notify the
PAUSD by December 2013 to effect the option, which was in 5 year increments,
so if the City was to exercise the option it would be in effect January 2015.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked why the Council Contingency went from $250,000 to
$264,000
Mr. Perez stated Staff needed to make the changes reflective of the adjusted
budget.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the Management Compensation Plan.
Mr. Keene stated essentially there was an agreement with the Management
Professional Group to restructure both the internal equity of the positions and
to align them with the market. The figure was a specific amount so the
decisions to make any adjustments in the Management Professional Group were
going to be dictated by the amount of funding available.
Chair Scharff stated the concept made sense for incoming positions although
for existing position was being paid adequately or they would have left the
position.
Mr. Keene stated the Study being performed was for the current salaries in the
City in relation to fifteen to twenty benchmark agencies. He stated that was
data that should be available consistently to ensure the City was at market
value with their employees. He stated the question with what to do with the
27 FIN 05/24/11
data was being limited by the $310,000. He clarified if there were to be any
actual adjustments they would be limited to the amount of funding availble
which would be the $310,000.
Chair Scharff stated his preference was to limit the funds available to
recruitment and not increase current salaries.
Mr. Keene suggested a separate session be held with respect to the funding
since the dollars would not be spent prior to July 1, 2011.
Chair Scharff stated Staff would be returning to the Finance Committee prior to
July 1, 2011 so there was no need to make a separate Motion.
Mr. Keene stated no, Staff would be bringing back the Management
Compensation Study final recommendations. The adjustments needing to be
made to the Compensation Plan which Council would need to approve once the
Finance Committee approved them.
Mr. Perez stated the funds could not be spent without Finance Committee and
Council approval so by bringing the Compensation Plan both entities could
review the specific recommendations by classification.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the non-departmental budget for Fiscal year 2012 with the detail that
there would be Staff follow-up on the Management Compensation Study
returning to the Finance Committee the following fiscal year.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
j. City Council Budget (continued from May 3, 2011)
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras stated the original City Council budget
was presented to the Finance Committee on May 3, 2011. She stated the
revenue decreases totaling $105,000 which was a decrease in administrative
overhead charges; expense shows an increase which Staff was returning to
Council with a view of updated salaries and benefits totaling $145,000. Staff
had reviewed the actual health care costs for the full Council totaling $107,848
and the Council portion of the retiree medical actuary contribution was
$44,592.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez stated all of the major expenses;
healthcare, pension, retiree healthcare in the general benefits then it was
28 FIN 05/24/11
allocated to all of the departments. The methodology used was based on
salaries which did not work for the Council portion. He stated the information
requested regarding the iPad costs were reflected on page 3.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the Council budget with the detail that there would not be an
expenditure of City funds on the iPad in Fiscal Year 2012.
City Manager, James Keene stated there were two parts to the iPad
expenditure; 1) the purchase or acquisition cost and 2) the ongoing monthly
service charge.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated his understanding was with Wi-Fi there would not be a
need for a data plan on a monthly basis to be able to access the online services.
Mr. Perez stated the concern would be the interruption of Wi-Fi if the system
has an issue or the abundance of Wi-Fi equipment in use in the Council
Chambers during a given meeting; the City had procured a few iPads for test
purposes.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation there was a Wi-Fi connection in the Council
Chambers.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct; there were both secured and public accesses.
Chair Scharff stated when the Council received their packets it would not be the
night of the meeting. He asked why would Council need to access the Wi-Fi
while in the Council Chambers. He stated once the packet was released it could
be downloaded to the device of choice. Therefore, he was uncertain as to why
there needed to be a 3G connection at a cost of $5,000 as a back-up to Wi-Fi.
Mr. Keene stated the assumption by Staff was the Council would access the
packet from their chosen device in different locations and there was the ability
to instantaneously update the packet if there was a supplemental.
Chair Scharff argued no matter when a supplemental was received the user
would still need to click on a link and download the item which could be done
utilizing Wi-Fi. He stated the question was why would you want the City to pay
for an item that could be perceived by the community as abuse of City funds.
Mr. Keene stated that seemed to be more of a political policy question for the
full Council.
29 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff stated the technical question was whether it was needed or not
and then there was the policy issue.
Mr. Keene stated there were times where Wi-Fi was unavailable when he was
working and the 3G would be an available back-up.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated in her residence there were 3 iPads,
1 with 3G service and that one downloads items quickly, it is usable on an
airplane or in the car, when the iPad was not configured with the 3G the service
was slow and the user needed to search for Wi-Fi service.
Chair Scharff stated the Wi-Fi service in his residence was faster than the 3G he
had on his personal iPad therefore he did not see the importance of the extra
cost to the City. He clarified if Council was utilizing the device for City business
as it was intended, which was downloading and reviewing the Council packet,
the Wi-Fi service was more than sufficient.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the conversation was being driven away from the Council
budget into political commentary. He stated his preference was to proceed
slowly in terms of increasing the costs as it related to supporting the City
Council. He felt the issue was he was uncertain as to whether the full Council
would be accepting of the iPad. He noted the proposed information indicated a
$4,000 per Council Member cost and assuming the maxim was a $35,000 cost
for the entire Council. If a Council Member opted into the iPad process, the Wi-
Fi level should be tested for adequacy before determining the monthly plan was
necessary.
Mr. Keene clarified the $4,000 cost was for the full Council not an individual
cost. The 3G cost was based on $30.00 per month. He noted in one month the
cost of creating a paper packet with Staff time and delivery was higher than a
full year of 3G service.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had heard there was an expectation for
individual Council Members to purchase their own iPad device which she was
uncertain she agreed with that policy. She felt the decision should be with the
full Council. The $30 monthly service fee it was not a large amount the other
option was not having access to your email for the entire day. She
recommended the item be continued to the full Council unless the
recommendation from Staff was for the Finance Committee to make a decision
regarding the iPad.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated it was not a Staff recommendation although he included
it in the Motion.
30 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd stated she would not be supporting the Motion for
the purposes of the iPad.
Council Member Schmid stated he did not feel any Council Member should pay
a fee for access to information. He stated if there was a hint that Council
Members, as a representative of the public, needed to buy in to information he
would vote against it.
Chair Scharff stated in terms of the iPad, why would there be a determined use
of that specific device.
Mr. Keene stated it was possible to use different types of devices. He noted
there needed to be standardized software or platform used to distribute the
information.
Mr. Perez stated there was no Staff recommendation for iPads at this time.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated Chair Scharff had split the Motion into two separate
questions; 1) tentative approval of the City Council budget and 2) the issue of
iPads.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the City Council budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Vice Mayor Yeh stated his concerns with all Council Members preferring an
electronic interface. The question was in the future if someone chose not to
have an electronic device, would there be an option to receive a paper packet.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was the City Clerk’s department would
produce paper packets.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated for purposes of public access there needed to be paper
copies available.
Mr. Keene stated there were and would continue to be paper packets available
at the City libraries. The policy question was how much access to information,
in what formats, and how much of that would the City underwrite.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated that was where he saw the iPad item as a choice and if
Council Members chose that type of an interface that was the basis where his
31 FIN 05/24/11
discomfort arose. It was not mandatory for City Council Members to interface
electronically and therefore the basis for the Motion was if it was a choice it
should not involve City funds.
Council Member Schmid stated his basic belief was good information was key to
good decisions by the Council. He felt valid questions had been raised regarding
the electronic access, especially the search options available on the City
website. If the City was moving in that direction he was in favor of a budget
that assisted the City prepare for a transition where search ability in an
electronic format was as good as what could be done in a paper format.
Chair Scharff stated the first issue was if the City supplied iPads. The lifespan of
the device was 3 to 4 years at most. The second issue was Wi-Fi and was it
necessary to have 3G or should there be a slow move to determine the need.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to not expend
City funds on the iPad in Fiscal Year 2012.
MOTION FAILED: 2 – 2 Scharff, Yeh yes – Schmid, Shepherd no
Information Items
-Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of Proposed FY2012 Storm Drainage
Fund Budget
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez noted the items coming forward for the next meeting included
information on the practices and costs for minutes preparation, the train station
leasing information, the Municipal Fee Schedule, the approval for the scope of
services for the consulting agreements and the Wrap-Up.
The next meeting was scheduled for May 25th, 2011.
Wrap-Up was scheduled for
-June 7th the Finance Committee will meet on Utilities and the City Auditor will
introduce the new City Auditor.
-Tentative meeting for 3rd quarter financials on the 31st, but he suggested
moving this out to July 5th with the Refuse discussion.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 25, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Request to approve changes to the Fiscal Year 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez reviewed the At-Place
memo which covered changes in the Municipal Fee Schedule, where the City was with
the General Fund, and the Committee had requested Staff return with information on
the costs for citywide tracking the minutes for Council and other Committees and
Commissions. He stated there was an average monthly cost of $16, 207 for 31 hours.
He noted 29 percent of the cost was contracted out.
Council Member Schmid asked why the verbatim minutes cost was so much less.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would research the question and return with a response.
City Clerk, Donna Grider stated verbatim minutes were straight typing from the
transcription tape where sense minutes required a thought process of extracting the
summary of what was said.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 2
Chair Scharff asked if the City went to verbatim minutes for all Committees and
Commissions excluding Council would there be a large sum of funds saved.
Ms. Grider stated sense minutes would take longer due to the complexity although she
was not comfortable confirmng there would be a cost savings. She noted verbatim
minutes were difficult to follow.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the verbatim minutes were contracted out.
Ms. Grider stated that was correct, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) had their minutes done in a verbatim format with a contracted transcriptionist.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the difference between Action Minutes and
Sense Minutes.
Ms. Grider stated Action Minutes were the Agenda Item, the Motion, and the vote with
no discussion responding to said Item. She noted many cities had converted to Action
Minutes and there was a cost savings in that accomplishment.
Chair Scharff stated the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) did Action
Minutes at a cost of $45 monthly, the P&TC did verbatim minutes at a cost of $25
monthly, and the Policy & Services Committee did Sense Minutes at a cost of $1,100
per month.
Ms. Grider stated the Council, Finance Committee, and Policy and Services Committee
meetings were hours longer than either of the others mentioned.
Chair Scharff stated the Architectural Review Board (ARB) did verbatim at a cost of $34
per month.
Mr. Perez noted that contract costs were at the bottom of the page and stated the
P&TC, the ARB, and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had an average monthly
contract with an outside transcriptionist (the department did not provide a breakout to
Staff before the meeting and that needed to be taken into consideration). Returning to
the At-Place memo he said the Committee requested Staff return with information on
the Train Depot lease. He stated in 1981 there was a meeting between the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), Stanford and the City to enhance the service in the
area and at present Staff was in the process of (fixing) the relationship. The option
comes up on January 26, 2013.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated Item
1 was regarding the Staff recommendations for the Municipal Fee Schedule. He noted
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 3
there was a Comprehensive Cost of Service Recovery Study planned which would
include suggestions or recommendations for the 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule. Staff
reviewed the fee changes proposed for FY 2012 and he noted all of the changes fell
within the exemptions for Proposition 26. The increased General Fund revenue was on
the low side compared to prior years. He reviewed the changes to the Community
Services Department fee schedule which included increases to facilities rental fees,
organic garden plots, the Junior Museum and Zoo, and the Aquatics Program. He
reviewed the changes to the Planning and Community Environment fee schedule which
included 2 new fees 1) a plan and inspection fee for gray or reclaimed water systems,
and 2) review and inspection fee increases for the wireless facilities to take into
account the additional Staff time needed. Development impact fees increased by 4.4
percent, and the College Terrace Parking Permit Program increased to $40 annually for
guest permits to achieve full cost recovery. He reviewed the Library fee schedule
changes which included a new fee for room rental at the Downtown Library and a
deletion of the inter-library loan fee.
Council Member Schmid stated it appeared there were two options, either an increase
in fees or a decrease in services. He asked what the thought process was behind
charging for the spaces at the libraries.
Mr. Perez stated a fundamental issue is that the libraries have no funding for the
operations. Staff was working on ways to raise the funds to support the operations. He
noted the Capital Fund assisted in the furnishings and the technology equipment.
Council Member Schmid stated his assumption was the 2013 budget would include
those costs. He stated there was a substantial rise in the fees and he asked whether
that was a good message to be sent.
City Manager, James Keene stated with the Capital improvements there were now
spaces the community wanted to use. He stated seeing the libraries as a multi-purpose
and multi-use facility there were considerations being reviewed for Staffing and times
where the facilities would be open for business.
Assistant Library Director, Cornelia van Aiken stated the libraries had not previously
had a space such as what was being built so there were Staffing issues being created
in order to sufficiently use the space as in setting schedules, sign-up sheets, and
organizing the area to ensure maximum use.
Council Member Schmid stated he did not want the fees to discourage the community
from utilizing the libraries.
Ms. van Aiken stated the only room being charged a fee was the larger community
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 4
rooms.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff had reflected on the availability schedule of the room,
would it be available for an all-day rental or broken into hours and would it be reserved
or first come first served.
Ms. van Aiken stated the room would be rented by the hour.
Chair Scharff asked if there were similar rooms in other libraries.
Ms. van Aiken stated Staff had reviewed other communities and libraries and was
utilizing similar models. She stated it was planned for the room to be heavily used by
Staff for projects and for community meetings.
Chair Scharff asked how the fee was calculated.
Ms. Van Aiken stated Staff took a comparable room at a community center and based
the fees by square footage as did the Community Services Department.
Council Member Schmid stated the inter-library loan was very expensive and was
hardly used. His understanding was the City was trying to eliminate the concept and
yet the budget was to eliminate the fee which seemed the complete opposite of what
was thought to happen.
Ms. van Aiken stated the fee was being eliminated because Staff was interested in
eliminating the service. She stated it was not cost effective to continue to supply the
service.
Council Member Schmid asked how the development impact fees increase was
calculated by the cost of construction. He stated the sale price for property in Palo Alto
was driven more by the land cost than the construction costs. He felt the development
fees should be based on the land value not the construction costs.
Mr. Keene stated the development impact fees were set-up in an Ordinance.
Council Member Schmid stated it was time to change the concept of the impact fees.
Mr. Keene stated it was appropriate for Staff to follow-up and return to the Committee
with the available options.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had discussed updating the Nexus Study and how close they
were to the market. Staff was reviewing the Fee Study for the other areas and felt the
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 5
development impact fees should be revisited as well. He noted a consultant would
need to be brought in for the review.
Council Member Schmid stated the size of the scale of the impact fees relative to the
cost of property.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated the fees in
question were established by an Ordinance and therefore a change was not a simple
process although it could be done if Council felt the need.
Council Member Schmid asked if there needed to be a vote to change the Ordinance.
Ms. Figone stated yes, there was an election involved (vote of the Council).
Chair Scharff asked if the increased fees were based on Staff time or was there a
formula followed to determine the increase amount.
Ms. Figone stated there was a formula in place used by Staff to calculate Parkland
dedication based on the numbers of acreage charged by a dollar amount.
Mr. Keene stated generally the methodology was closer to the impact additional use by
new people or development will have on the facilities.
Chair Scharff stated the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) had discussed
3,000 more housing units for the next cycle. He asked if Staff knew when the last time
the City updated the fees for park usage.
Mr. Perez stated an internal review was conducted two years ago, but it has been
about seven to nine years since we did an external study.
Chair Scharff asked if other municipalities performed an external review to establish a
nexus.
Mr. Perez stated he was uncertain.
Council Member Schmid stated for 30 years Palo Alto had the same population then at
the turn of the century there was a growth and now there were approximately 64
thousand people.
Mr. Keene stated he did not feel a comparison with other jurisdictions would be
beneficial in costs. The impact on who paid was of interest due to Proposition 13.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 6
Council Member Shepherd wanted to see if other communities based their development
impact fees on land value or construction. She asked where she would locate the fee
for the cell tower usage.
Mr. Perez stated the Municipal Fee Schedule included the cell tower fee information.
Council Member Shepherd asked for Staff to describe a wireless facility.
Ms. Figone stated a wireless facility was a facility housed within a replica tree or the
like.
Council Member Shepherd stated the AT&T facility that was going to occur at St Albert
the Great Church was a wireless tower.
Ms. Figone stated it could have been a wireless tower or a cell tower. She stated those
types of projects were taking a large amount of Staff time and therefore it was
preferred to have a deposit from the applicant upfront.
Council Member Shepherd stated the 488 University project would have been a $3,500
fee.
Ms. Figone stated there would have been a $3,500 deposit and at 80 percent
completion there would have been an additional amount due.
Council Member Shepherd stated AT&T did not pay a fee or deposit for the installation
of their most recent towers.
Ms. Figone stated there was a CIP fee which did not cover the costs expended.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the fee for Photo Voltaic checks were going away
and the plan checks fees were going to be all inclusive and yet the amount for the plan
check did not increase.
Chief Building Official, Larry Perlin stated the current fee derived the amount for
commercial systems installed on commercial buildings on a per panel basis at $10 per
panel. Staff learned there was not an appropriate ratio between the number of panels
and the complexity of the services. The solution was a flat fee for 3 different types of
systems; 1) small, 2) mid sized, and 3) large or complex.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the flat rate was more expensive.
Mr. Perlin stated the flat fee rate decreased the charges for the commercial projects.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 7
He clarified on average the current fee for the small system was $570.00 and the
proposed fee was $565.00, the mid-size was currently $2,600.00 and the proposed fee
went down to $1,890.00, and the larger systems the current was $6,650 and the
proposed fee would be $3,775.
Chair Scharff asked if there were any fees which were raised where the revenue
remained the same or there was lost revenue. He asked if Staff was tracking the fees
that were increased last year to determine whether the increase was beneficial.
Mr. Perez stated currently there was not a proper tracking system which was why Staff
was seeking to complete the study for verification that fees were at the proper rate.
Chair Scharff stated his question was when a municipality raised certain fees there
could be less usage due to the higher cost thereby losing revenue. He asked if there
were records indicating a deterred usage due to fee increases.
Mr. Perez stated generally speaking the departments tracked the revenue for their fee
based programs.
Mr. Keene stated with the ASD Staffing being short a Budget Analyst those types of
answers were not detailed in the budget books. He agreed there should be a process to
evaluate the nexus between price and usage.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the $528,000 cost to have the school group tour
the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ).
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts stated there were 2 different
fees; the first was for groups visiting the JMZ which was listed in the budget book as a
4 percent recovery. There is not an admission fee for the public at large – individuals
and families - and therefore there was no assistance in the operational costs. The
second area was the Project Look Program at the Art Center, which has similar
circumstances in terms of operational cost offsets
Chair Scharff asked where the Art Center was located in the budget book.
Mr. Betts stated the Art Center was listed as tours under Arts and Sciences. He clarified
the only ability to recoup the costs for the operations and upkeep of the sculpture
gardens, exhibits, and gallery was the Project Look Tours.
Chair Scharff stated when admissions were charged for groups it should be a marginal
cost to deal with that specific group rather than the full cost. If there was a fixed
operational cost there may be more tours with a less expensive opportunity for groups.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 8
Mr. Betts stated there were docents used to provide the program and there was
funding being received from the Art Center Foundation so if Staff was to review just
the cost for the tour and not that of the building costs or the display or exhibit costs
there would be a higher rate of return.
Mr. Perez stated the reason behind the study was to better understand the needs and
costs for every aspect of the financial responsibilities of the City. The IBRC was
indicating the costs for the building maintenance should be included but in doing so the
rate of return dropped. Staff felt after the study was completed Council could make
policy decisions on how to track the fees and revenue.
Chair Scharff stated it did make sense to not charge the majority of the visitors to the
JMZ yet charge a group tour for the entire fee for supporting the JMZ.
Council Member Shepherd stated Project Look did have a docent, a craft project and
were hands on with computers so there was added value when groups visited.
Chair Scharff stated you meant added cost.
Mr. Betts stated yes, there was value on having a person there to show the group the
different displays and explain what was being seen.
Chair Scharff stated he supported Project Look although his concern was having fees
and costs on the entirety of Project Look that were not incurred by the Program.
Recovery costs should reflect those costs for recovery of the Program itself and not
that of other programs. The marginal costs needed to be segregated. He asked why
there was not a charge for infants at Rinconada Park and now there will be.
Supervisor of Recreational Programs, Khashayar Alaee stated historically there was no
fee for the infants although infants do utilize the pool with the parents and since the
City was in the mode of increasing cost recovery it was determined to charge a
nominal fee for the usage.
Chair Scharff asked if other cities charged for the same service.
Mr. Alaee stated the City of Menlo Park did have a fee but the City of Mountain View
did not.
Council Member Shepherd asked the actual fee.
Mr. Alaee stated with the drop-in fees there was a range to give the program the
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 9
flexibility to decide the actual entrance fee based on the market.
Chair Scharff stated the hourly fee was being increased with respect to the Ball Room
and Community Room at Lucie Stern. He asked if those rooms were fully reserved
frequently or were they under utilized.
Mr. Alaee stated Lucie Stern was very popular and was usually reserved a full year in
advance for the entire year.
Chair Scharff requested to have Staff return with the impacts on the Parks and general
infrastructure due to development.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would return with options for Council to review.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the increase in the Fee Schedule and request Staff to
return with a plan to review Development Impact Fees.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh absent
2. Approval of Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Scopes of
Services for Consultant Agreements Greater than $85,000.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was a part of the budget where Council was able
to review projects that were larger than $85,000. He explained the projects being
brought before the Finance Committee were not for approval, but for a review of the
proposed Scope of Service for each project. Staff would return to the full Council for
contract approval once vendors were selected. He informed the Committee the El
Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Streetscape Project was a return project from 2010 and
was inadvertently carried over.
City Manager, James Keene asked why the projects were brought forward for review
now then presented to Council.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated the process was put
into place approximately 9 years ago when the Finance Committee Members felt when
they approved the Capital Program they did not have a chance to review the Scope of
Services related to the Capital Program and there was a desire to understand what was
going to be done before the bid was approved.
Chair Scharff stated all of the CIPS before the Committee had been reviewed
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 10
previously by the Council. He asked if there was new information.
Mr. Keene recommended removing this process from the budget review. The projects
were reviewed by the Council, then reviewed by the Finance Committee, then once
they were contracted reviewed by the Council again. He felt there was additional
Committee and Staff time being inefficiently utilized.
Council Member Shepherd asked how the revenue correlated to the Safe Route to
Schools Project.
Mr. Perez stated the revenue shown in the budget books was from private projects and
the funds were being collected for reimbursement of project expenditures.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Safe Route to Schools was a cost of $1.2 million
and yet in the Capital Improvement Projects listing it showed $697,000.
Mr. Perez stated if you were to add the prior year expenses to the current year budget
the total was $1.2 million.
Council Member Schmid stated he found it helpful to review the larger projects. He
stated he was surprised with the California Avenue project that with a $350,000
consulting cost the City was not going to widen the sidewalks. He did not understand
how to plan a street without sidewalks.
Mr. Perez stated he recalled the Consultant felt the sidewalks could be determined at a
later time.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Motion needed to reference the additional funding
necessary to complete a specific project or was it implied within the CIP.
Chair Scharff stated it may be necessary to ensure there was sufficient funding. He felt
it was inherent that there needed to be additional funding necessary to widen the
sidewalks since the original CIP was for the street.
Mr. Keene stated his initial understanding was there was variability with the contract.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was the City was not at the
widening of the sidewalk point in the contract.
Chair Scharff stated he was not comfortable approving a budget of $1.17 million when
his understanding was Staff was to bring a firm budget.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 11
Mr. Keene stated his thought was this amount was definitely going to be utilized and
the question was would there be an additional cost coming forward with alternates.
Council Member Schmid stated the project budget was about $1.2 million 2012.
Mr. Keene stated for the most part that would be from the VTA Grant funding.
Council Member Schmid stated his concern was the VTA binding the City for certain
things and with this project they were binding the City to the street.
Mr. Keene requested the Committee approve this portion of the project with the
knowledge there would be another part containing alternatives coming at a later date.
Chair Scharff stated there were Stanford funds which may still come in. He did not feel
there was a shortage of funding to be located.
Mr. Perez stated the project had $550,000 in the prior year budget and the $1.2 million
was in the 2012 budget. He stated if the Committee wished to add to the Scope of
Services what it was they wished to see when the project returned the Council it made
sense.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was this process was for the
Committee to approve the contracts to get them signed so the projects can move
forward.
Mr. Keene stated there were multiple purposes which were converging in this process.
His understanding is that $85,000 was the threshold above the City Manager’s
approval and bringing the list forward was to give a preview of what would be coming
to Council in the next budget year. He stated the California Avenue Project was not
complete although the approved budget was the dollar amount necessary to complete
the parts of the Project for that budget year.
Mr. Perez stated at this time the request was for approval of the Scope of Services so if
there were items that the Committee wished to add to the Scope this process granted
that opportunity.
Chair Scharff stated he did not understand why this report was being approved. He
suggested moving to the Wrap-up to discuss the individual items there and approve
the entire budget.
Mr. Perez stated it was not a Staff request but a Staff response to a prior Council
direction.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 12
Mr. Keene recommended treating the report as an information item and have the
discussion of the CIP’s at the Wrap-up.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid that the Finance
Committee include the Capital Improvement Programs in the budget wrap-up.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh Absent.
3. Wrap-Up – Discussion of Outstanding issues from Prior 2012 Budget Hearing
Meetings and Recommendation to Council.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated in
response to the location of the cell tower fee, the Municipal Fee Schedule showed the
information on page 17-9 under the Planning Fees under Minor Change to Existing.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there was a wireless fee separate from the
cell tower fee.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated both types
of service would fall under the same wireless facility fee.
Mr. Ramberg reviewed the items that had been discussed through the budget process
and the financial related decisions made. In the General Fund there was a beginning
balance of $131,000 and from May5th through to May 24th decisions were made which
brought the balance to $433,000. He stated there was an outstanding tentative
approval needed for the City Clerk’s budget. There was a revenue line item that had
not been brought to the Committee’s attention and from a budgetary perspective Staff
wished to remove the item from the budget. He explained a few years back there was
a recommendation for a Foothill Parking Fee at the Cubberley Community Center and
that fee was never negotiated with the Foothill/De Anza District therefore the $65,000
revenue had not had actuals in it.
Council Member Schmid asked about the transfer from the Debt Service Fund where
there was a positive $283,000.
Mr. Perez stated when you issue debt you were required to have a Reserve Fund in
case you were unable to make the payments. The General Fund transfer to the Debt
Service Fund had been left and Staff recognized the monies set aside were not
necessary since the loans had been paid; therefore the transfer setup was not
necessary.
Council Member Schmid stated the funds were a surplus.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 13
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd referred to page 136 in the Capital Budget booklet. She
asked how the City managed the allocation of the salary budget for Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) which appeared for Fiscal Year 2012 to be 10 percent and
yet in Fiscal Year 2013 it went incrementally higher due to fewer CIP’s in the Capital
Fund. She stated by allowing a pooling of funding for all projects there was not true
cost.
Mr. Perez stated on page 136 the amount included the salaries and benefits for those
positions which had been identified specifically for Fiscal Year 2012 that had been
allocated to Capital Project program. There was an assumption made that that number
would remain the same each year. He stated year after year the budget Staff worked
with the departments with the Capital Programs to identify whether those resources
were still allocated in the same manner. Currently there were 96 positions budgeted for
all of the Capital Programs so the General Fund was a central budgeted location. At the
end of a Fiscal Year, charges are transferred from the General Fund to that specific
project to match the actual expenses from staff logging their time spent on each
project.
Mr. Ramberg stated there was a secondary form of reporting to the Council at the Year
End process where the actual labor charge for each Project was reflected.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification that the $3.384 million amount in the Capital
Budget book was a space holder.
Mr. Perez stated yes, it was a budgeted amount.
Chair Scharff stated the actual amount was charged at the end of the Fiscal Year and
the charge could go up to the budgeted $3.384 million.
Mr. Perez stated if a Project was being charged and there was a need for more salary
monies the department would need to request additional funding.
Chair Scharff asked for the budgeted and actual numbers for Fiscal Year 2010.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the summary for Fiscal Year 2012 included
the $3.384 million space holder amount.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 14
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the $16 million summary for Fiscal Year 2013
included the $3.5 million space holder amount.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had an issue with those amounts.
Mr. Keene stated page 136 showed $3.3 million budgeted in General Fund salaries but
when the schedule was reviewed there was $35 million worth of Projects. He asked
whether there were other salaries being charged against the $35 million beyond the
$3.3 million.
Mr. Perez stated no.
Mr. Keene asked whether there were Staff working on the Measure N Library Bonds.
Mr. Perez stated yes and some of the same Staff was being charged from the $3.384
million.
Council Member Schmid stated the revenue shown on page 32 excluded the funds from
outside sources so the revenue picture was not a true statement.
Mr. Perez stated the assumption for cost allocation for Staff in 2012 was the same Staff
members would be carried forward each year. That may not be true which was why
those numbers needed to be adjusted annually.
Council Member Schmid stated the CIP information needed to be updated to show a
more real time revenue and expense.
Mr. Keene stated any numbers entered would be pure conjecture in a sense right now;
therefore making it difficult to include the numbers in the proposed budget book.
Council Member Schmid stated he understood the real numbers could not be entered
into the books although the actual ratio of salaries against the CIP could be.
Mr. Keene stated he agreed it would be more beneficial and easier to track budgeting
on a project by project basis.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it made sense to have that type of ratio of a labor
pool of engineers and the projects. She stated the CIP’s should be separated out and
reviewed by project and expense either from Council to the IBRC or the reverse. She
noted she was uncomfortable approving such a large amount without a clear
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 15
understanding of the funding.
Mr. Keene stated for 2012 the proposed budget was fairly accurate.
Council Member Shepherd stated a 10 percent of fees was normal.
Mr. Keene stated there were hard costs included in the 10 percent not just the
engineering and design Staffing.
Council Member Shepherd stated the indication in the proposed budget book was the
10 percent was inflation of salaries and benefits. She recommended the IBRC review
the CIP budgeting process since the current process was to decipher the information
and make it clearer for Council and the public.
Mr. Perez stated in going back to the question for Chair Scharff, on page 27 it showed
Fiscal Year 2010 actuals of salaries and benefits of $3.331 million while the budget was
$3.5 million. The expenditures for the CIP’s were $20.3 million.
Chair Scharff stated the adopted budget for 2011 was 3 over 17.
Mr. Perez stated no, it was 3 over 21.
Council Member Shepherd asked if hard costs were still included.
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor stated it was not hard costs for materials
just Staff costs. He stated on page 383 of the Operating Budget it showed the Staffing
associated with the CIP budget.
Mr. Perez stated in 1999 there was a decision made that for every $1 million there
needed to be a dedicated engineer.
Council Member Shepherd stated that there was a mix of contract and in house labor,
and that not all of the funds used to pay for them came from the grant funds.
Mr. Sartor stated the Transportation Division Staff was not included in the CIP budget
but were included in the Operating Budget.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the Staff in that group were hands on in a design
manner.
Mr. Sartor stated yes.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 16
Mr. Keene wanted to clarify the proposed budget books were not the financial plan for
every aspect of every project in the City. The role of the document was an executive
legislative summary to allow the Committee and Council to see what was going on with
in the City. Stated the City Manager and the Director of Administrative Services needed
to set aside time to revamp the budget documents in a way that the information better
fits the current Council’s questions and concerns moving forward.
Chair Scharff stated Council Member Shepherd’s concern as he understood it was $3.4
million cost on an ongoing basis of a $20 million CIP budget then removing the Bond
funds which that in the budget where the CIP budget was going down. He stated in
2012 you reached $4 million cost to manager $12 million CIP budget which was 25
percent. He stated he agreed the projects should be broken out by project and if there
were non management Staff working on the project there needed to be separate line
items.
Mr. Keene proposed scheduling special sessions with the Finance Committee as Staff
moved through changing the budgeting process.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it would helpful to Staff to break the Finance
Committee into subgroups and have Staff work with the subgroups on Questions and
Answers (Q&A) that way when Staff returned to the full Finance Committee a large
portion of the Q&A has been dealt with.
Mr. Keene stated he did not want to Finance Committee Members to perform actual
work, their function was setting policy.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the IBRC incorporated the CIP component in
their discussions.
Mr. Sartor stated no, not at this point.
Council Member Shepherd stated the numbers presented to the Committee were rough
numbers but without the IBRC having reviewed them how rough were they.
Mr. Sartor stated the numbers presented to the Committee last week were the
estimated costs for the brick and mortar projects for the next 25 years without
including the Staffing costs.
Council Member Shepherd said she was referring to all Staff costs, and if the numbers
showed that.
Mr. Perez said there were both operating and capital costs which were budgeted for
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 17
separately.
Council Member Shepherd said was trying to have confidence in the overall picture.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the
Finance Committee request Staff return with presentations regarding suggested
changes for redesigning the Budget Documents.
Chair Scharff said the goal was to accept the City Manager proposal and request that
Staff return with the requested presentations without an overwhelming time frame.
Mr. Keene said that Staff would work to restructure the Budget documents to include
more of the necessary information and less of the unnecessary. This will allow the
Finance Committee to have better input through a more effective budget document.
Staff would return periodically to the Finance Committee for guidance on the changes.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
Council Member Shepherd asked about Measure N Capital funds. She asked if there
was a way to start identifying it so Council or the Finance Committee could decide what
should apply to the Measure and what should be absorbed by the budget.
Mr. Sartor said Staff did track within each CIP the Staffing costs, but they did not
charge them back to it. Staff could bring those charges back to the Finance Committee
for their consideration.
Council Member Shepherd asked how difficult that would be for Staff to manage.
Mr. Sartor said that when Staff codes the CIP numbers in the SAP system already, so
that data can be recovered.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee request Staff calculate Staff cost related to bond projects and
return to the Finance Committee.
Chair Scharff said he would agree as long as it is only used for CIP projects that last 30
years and are not applied to the General Fund.
Council Member Shepherd agreed, and said that should have been in the Motion
originally.
Mr. Sartor said it would apply to Staff time spent on bond projects only.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 18
Mr. Perez said Library Staff was in a bond process as well.
Council Member Shepherd said she would like to see all of that if the SAP program can
manage it.
Mr. Sartor said that the SAP system tracks the data by Cost Center, and the bond
project Staff time is a different cost center, so it is set up to track.
Chair Scharff said he would not want to see the cost of projects increase because Staff
had to spend the time to bring them back to the Committee.
Mr. Perez asked if they wanted Staff to go to Council or return to the Finance
Committee.
Chair Scharff said they should return to the Finance Committee.
Council Member Shepherd agreed and reiterated that they were not making any
decisions, just reviewing the funds.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on how the Public Works Staff bills their
time.
Mr. Sartor said they bill their time to the Capital Project; the Staff is built into the CIP.
Mr. Perez stated that the fund is not being reimbursed by the bond for Staff time.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to
remove the $15,000 Art Restoration Fund from the Proposed Budget.
Council Member Shepherd said that was a lot of money and would like to see it go
before Council before the decision is made.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
Council Member Schmid discussed Capital CIP Revenue. Balancing revenues and
expenditures was critical. He expressed concern over using Capital Transfer to balance
this.
Mr. Perez said they were balanced. He said it was important to identify one time
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 19
versus on-going expenses. Just because the Return on Investment is five years
doesn’t mean the City will see it in five years. Demonstrating the breakdown with
variable versus fixed is an important component of the process.
Council Member Schmid said it was appropriate to look at the 5-20 year history. He
reviewed some of the decisions made by the Finance Committee during the Budget
process. He asked if the contract cost Staff reported for minutes transcription was
included in the City Clerk’s Budget.
Mr. Perez said it was spread out through the various departments that complete
minutes. Staff was attempting to show how much the minutes cost, at the request of
the Finance Committee, it was not a request to increase the budget.
Council Member Schmid confirmed that all the adjustments made during the budget
process were included in the Wrap Up.
Mr. Perez said that was correct.
Council Member Schmid then confirmed they were reporting a Budget with an excess
of $650,000.
Mr. Perez said that was correct, but included the assumption that they would get the
$4.3 million in concessions from the Safety groups.
Mr. Keene reviewed the Budget stating that it was an operating document, a planning
document, and a policy document. He reiterated the need for the Public Safety Groups
to share in the concessions already made by the other operating groups. He said Staff
was optimistic these concessions could be achieved. The Non-Departmental Summary
included the budgeted savings for a variety of items as well as $1 million for next
year’s pension increases. He recommended placing the $650,000 in the Non-
Departmental Fund to allow for flexibility. He recommended not spending the money.
They needed to closely monitor their cash flow through the year because of the
dependency on the concessions. Staff wanted to assure Council they would manage
the awarding of contracts and hiring decisions as they try to manage the cash flow.
Chair Scharff said liquidity should not be a problem with the ability to borrow from the
Calaveras Fund.
Mr. Keene agreed, stating that liquidity may not have been the right term. They just
don’t want to make commitments or obligate ourselves to spend money.
Council Member Schmid asked about the Refuse Fund Reserves.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 20
Mr. Perez reviewed the Projected Balance Table which showed a balance of $27.7
million. He recommended a loan as a funding source.
Mr. Keene reiterated that a $5 million liability will have to be carried on the books.
Next year they have to have $3.7 to cover expenses in the Refuse Fund. A loan places
the liability into the General Fund.
Chair Scharff asked about using another CIP as a placeholder for $300,000. They had
discussed moving the historical collection from the Main Library. He said he would like
Staff to review the feasibility of not moving it and return to Finance Committee to
determine whether this makes sense. We can then decide to proceed or not.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to create
another CIP with a placeholder for $300,000 and for Staff to review the feasibility and
return to the Finance Committee to discuss whether moving the historical collection
makes sense.
Chair Scharff reiterated that he wanted Staff to hold the money and then determine if
it makes sense to proceed.
Mr. Sartor clarified that the project included moving costs. The current plan was to
move the collection from the Main Library to the temporary library when they break
ground and then back to the Main Library at a later point.
Chair Scharff said he did not feel it made sense to move the collection twice.
Council Member Shepherd said she felt it was premature to make this decision. She
asked if the Library Advisory Commission voted in favor of the project.
Chair Scharff said they voted in favor of it conceptually.
Mr. Perez said the Cubberly contract expires shortly. Staff would return with a request
for an extension.
Mr. Keene discussed the California Avenue project and suggested sequestering
funding. He said a potential CIP relief fund was another idea that could provide a safety
net for CIP issues.
Chair Scharff said this should go to Council in June or July. The Cubberly option
expires in June and they had not determined funding yet.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 21
AMENDMENT: Chair Scharff moved that Staff look into the issue of moving the library
collection, and return with options for not moving the collection twice.
Council Member Shepherd said she agreed, but felt it was a conversation for the
following year.
Mr. Sartor stated the plan as it stood was to move the collection from the Main Library
to Cubberly and back to the Main Library in 2013. He said it would be ideal if the Roth
Building was already built, but that was not the case.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to earmark the
entire $651,000 into an infrastructure CIP safety net fund.
Mr. Perez confirmed that the amount was $651,000 not the $650,000 previously
mentioned.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved seconded by Chair
Scharff to move $500,000 into a CIP safety net fund, instead of the full $651,000.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Chair Scharff discussed the City Manager’s suggestion regarding the California Avenue
project.
Mr. Keene said there was a specific amount of money in the project fund for follow up.
Staff needed to know how additional funding would be managed.
Chair Scharff stated the Finance Committee expects Staff to return with a variety of
options for the fund.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams suggested they
move that the scope may be expanded upon review of the design options.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to request Staff
return to the Finance Committee with options for the scope to possibly be increased.
Mr. Williams suggested a September 2011 time frame.
Chair Scharff confirmed that the intent was that by approving the $1.75 million Staff
will come back to the Finance Committee with options to enhance the California
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 22
Avenue project with a range of options, including increasing sidewalks, without limiting
the project to the $1.75 million.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve the
City Clerks Proposed Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Mr. Perez said they still needed to approve the Scope of Services.
Chair Scharff said they decided they did not need to do that.
Mr. Perez said they still needed the approval.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve
Scope of Services.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Chair Scharff asked about the Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Plan. He said he
had much feedback about this priority, yet there was only $50,000 in the budget
request. He wanted Staff to return, prior to approving the CIP Budget and the
Stanford Fund vote, to discuss how they could use some of that Stanford Fund to help
this project.
Mr. Keene reviewed the Stanford Fund. If approved by Council on June 6, 2011, the
use of the funds is at the discretion of the Council. It can be used for Capital
Improvement Projects. Staff would have to review those options prior to the Budget
approval.
Mr. Williams said outlining a project would be possible.
Mr. Keene said a recommendation had been made regarding that fund regarding
Project Safety Net.
Council Member Schmid said as the plan was already in formation, it would be great to
get some money added to it.
Mr. Williams reviewed the status of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Plan.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 23
Chair Scharff said he suggested Council should discuss the CIP process to determine
whether or not it would be funded so that Staff could determine how much work to put
into it.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX that
Staff return to Council, if Stanford was approved, with a plan for a potential CIP to get
a sense on the plans feasibility.
Council Member Shepherd said she did not know if she could second that. She
believed they should review the objectives to entice people to get out of their cars.
She discussed the shuttle funding. She would like to see if the funds were attached to
some type of parameters regarding sustainability.
Mr. Keene said that he felt the project was developed enough that these decisions
could be made once the funding was available. Council could decide whether or not to
proceed.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHAIR SCHARFF
Council Member Shepherd asked if the funding was in place because of other
sustainability conversations.
Mr. Keene said he did not remember all of the details but there were some City policies
relating to green standards that influenced the negotiations.
Council Member Shepherd said then the funds could be used for shuttles.
Mr. Keene said he thought the language in the Development Agreement would allow
some flexibility.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed it should be discussed during the CIP.
Chair Scharff reiterated that he heard from the public that the $50,000 was not the
right amount and that was why he had made the withdrawn motion. He wanted to
make sure Staff was prepared to answer the questions that would inevitably come up
regarding these funds. He thought specific amounts were designated to a variety of
options giving the City a very wide discretion with how the money is used.
Mr. Keene said that the June 6th Council Agenda was dedicated to Stanford and this
could be discussed at that time.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 24
Mr. Perez suggested the Committee move to approve the City Manager Proposed
Budget with the changes that were approved during the budget process.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to
tentatively approve the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Proposed Budget with the approved
changes made by the Finance Committee during the Budget Process.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
~'tr ~ Ph ~ f ~D ~tD l C~ ~1~'6 ( .1
••
11t\n: Ci~ Lte-r4-
5\.),( ~Joch~~ bhl.,\ hL'l'o.~!hl(
'16 tlv~ l ~~ ~CA-", ;
~\ V ~ ~~ r~ t; ~ Aj~-,jr~t
~ q t~ ~~~L:
o /,Q~e-~~,l.~J
iJ Lv ~ lNct:v-~<~ '<-.
t-u\ ~ I,}/ ",
1bb=t ~ ~<tt. ~~ v13) ~ ct);,,6
acvl-{t~ S=-lb 3i1
~. v.' ~ ~ <i: ~, he
()s .d!,l!\
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301.
May 10, 2011
Re: Wastewater Rate Increase.
My account number is: 30010361
f CITY OF P. .. .
CITy CLE~k9S AO .. t10. CA FF'ICE
I I HAY 16 AH II: OS
I am writing to protest the proposed City of Palo Alto Utilities Wastewater Rate
Increases. I do not waht the rates to be increased.
Thank you,
Larry Shapiro
391 Curtner Ave, Apt A
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3426
May 3, 2011
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City Clerk:
•
.J
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
II HAY -6 AM 10: at.
' .• f'~ ~,
Your notice of water/wastewater rate increases arrived last week. We have some significant
concerns, based on the information provided.
Wastewater: It appears from the chart that Sl-Residential and S2-Commerical & Restaurant pay
the same rates for wastewater services, and that a 13.2% rate increase is proposed. I do not think
that it is fair that commercial and restaurants pay the same as residential for two reasons:
1) A large 'portion of residential water does not go back into the wastewater treatment
system, but in fact is absorbed into the ground. Most homes use a lot of water on
landscaping, where is it most unusual that restaurants and businesses have extensive
landscaping.
2) Commercial & restaurants use more water that goes directly into the wastewater
treatment system than residences.
F or these reasons, I think that residential rates should be less for w;astewater treatment.
Water: I think that increasing the base charge per month hurts individuals who are conserving
water. Water rates should be based on the amount used, not for the fact that one has water in a
home or business. I see no justification for raising the base service charge. If Palo Alto really
wants people to conserve water, then raise the rate for the amount used.
If you need further thoughts or clarification, please contact us at the address below.
Sincerely,
J~--~,~
Steve and Nancy Suddjian
703 Ensign Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
--c / pZo/1 'I'~ I
DONNA 1. GRIDER, MMC
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Dear Ms. Grider,
CITY OF PALO ALT. O. G ..... JA CITY CLERK'S OFFIC£
'f MAY 23 AM !t 30
MAY 18,2011
I write to protest the increase in rates of the water service and the wastewater service.
I protest the proposed increase in water rate IT IS UNJUSTIFIED.
I protest the proposed increase in wastewater rate IT IS UNJUSTIFIED.
!
I most strongly object to inapproptiately increasing utility costs to rate payers in order to make a profit
center operation of the utility department.
Sincerely, RICHARD A. RUNKEL
741 GARLAND DRIVE
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
6503277589
\
• CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLE\3-K'S OFFICE
11 JUN -3 PM 1: f) 2
~) -\ -~'D II
'0 ~ s;' y~ ~-+c) . ' ~ ~ ~.\)u.-V\C. ~ -~ ~~\.~
~ ~ \~ \ ~ k...~,-\ !\-Iv1 j~ ~\ l\J .. '. c ,.
;'\"""\'~''r\~ \ ... J\J\.C'\.ll.CVU:vJ 'c.J \.w~
\:0~ t~ \.-u ~~ C~,;;;.)~/
~\t-.~1 \~1, .'~~ .
;-5. '-\' I\-.o-W ~~. W\A ... ~v'> l~~
'l\'-J"\ ~.t0v. y' 1:-' ~'L/~ ~-.v .iV,-.. ;+--
~"'\0 ~~\.o.. \ .. ~/~ l\.J\..A. ~~ C\ ...... i~ , •
384 Madeline Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utility account #: 30042376
.r
RE: PROTEST AGAINST UTILITY RATE CHANGE
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Madam/Sir:
•
clry OF PALO AllO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OfFICE
II HAY -4 AM 9:26
W' ~,? f '11 'iI!
April '30, 2011
This letter is to protest against the proposed increase in wastewater and water meter
service charges for the 2011 fiscal year. We urge the City of Palo Alto Utility
Department to investigate and implement cost-saving measures of operation instead of
increasing customer utility charges.
Sincerely,
r;i~Vtfire<
Tetyana Obukhanych
·!
tAJi2.. preted-ars.f:tflie tr~fCf;g?r •
\)../P,(£f a.../li vVtute M/tv{:e/("' H~~--r.:-i-cz.-'1e.-~/it-Ge-
~Vr"-lC u «-e-t~ rtt:6d CV1-e -LJk/r f-I-t:l.~i'l &>/1-By/"
c/ -H'0 ~U'1 f-4., Sp'-1f.-f.t, clp~z< (+w~7·,.
tAle G:~ ,rt-e 6l-~~ ~ ~ 4~tl
-zM (t) cr~-~(()~ ~-I f~I{)ltJl6rJ/ C/J-f4~)
(A p;t/ ~ I L 7 -02 -(!,71-2. )
Ul-i' 4 +-1 ~:,(. ,4c~~ " if ,,? () 0 1-ret/ f
<:( '-'w .'-' 0-. tJ... r--l..J.... -'0 « o~
-1::'::: <0::: CLW
-' ;,:,u
",->--I->---.
U{'...)
r-
ll')
<5
JC c:r
r-
J
Z ~ -,
(~frf-j ~~( J(
Ge'-~~vl L{' L--L_
d
•
April 27, 2011
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ayenue
Palo Alto,CA 94303
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
O'ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
II HAY -4 AM to: 56
I am protesting both the residential water and wastewater
increases.
Both increases are too much.
" Sincerely,
1V\~~a--J ItcCDLu,t-* 3 ()00D73/
Masao Sumida·
1040 Newell Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303-2930
{,
. ~ .... ~................... .f .. 7'.~.--......................................... ;:. ........ j .. ·r· .-... .
..... ~
... r/-.-.
__ . _ .. __ .---l
.•....... .c ..
. -.. ~.-~ _.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1628)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Summary Title: Water Utility Rate Increases for Fiscal Year 2012
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Water Utility Rate Changes pursuant to
Proposition 218
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
The Finance Committee and Staff request that the City Council adopt a resolution to:
1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached.
The recommended rate increase triggered the notice and protest hearing procedures under
Proposition 218.
Executive Summary
This report and attachments discuss the projected costs and revenue requirements for the
Water Fund for FY 2012 through FY 2016,as well as recommended rate revisions for FY 2012.
Staff assessed major cost drivers and expected costs, the short-term risks, reviewed reserve
guidelines, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five
years. Staff projects a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requests a revenue
increase of $3.4 million or an average rate increase of 12.5% for FY 2012. Due to sufficient
reserve levels in the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (WRSR), the remaining shortfall of $2.8
million in FY 2012 will be drawn out of the reserves. The five year projections beyond the
budget year indicate requirement for additional rate increases of 17%, 16% and 8% for FY 2013
through FY 2015. Staff requests the Council adoption of rate changes for FY 2012 only at this
time. The average rate adjustments projected for FY 2013 through FY 2016 are provided for
information purposes and are subject to change. The proposed rate adjustments achieve a
gradual increase of the revenue stream required to fund the expected operating expenses facing
the Water Fund over the next five years. The projected adjustments achieve the goals of
ensuring that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) is adequate and
within the Council-approved reserve guideline levels for FY 2012 and for the long-term forecast
horizon. In the interim years of FY 2013 and FY 2014, W-RSR is projected to go below the
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1628)
minimum guidelines but recover starting in FY 2015 and end within the guidelines at the end of
the forecast horizon.
In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC)
and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect
to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City, utilizing cost of service
analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain rate making
objectives. Staff recommends, in concurrence with these discussions including feedback from
the UAC and direction provided by the Finance Committee, a re-allocation of revenue collection
by rate class, in addition to the 12.5% revenue increase. The revenue-neutral rate adjustments
result in an average rate increase of 4.2% for the residential class, an average rate decrease of
9.9% for the commercial rate class, an average increase of 14.2% for the irrigation rate class, and
an average increase of 93% for the private fire hydrant rate class. Staff also recommends
structural changes to existing residential (W-1) and commercial (W-4) rate schedules in order to
promote more efficient use of water. The structural change involves adding one more tier to
residential and commercial rate schedules resulting in a total of three tiers in residential rates
and two tiers in commercial rates. Multiple usage tiers (inclining block rates) are used to
provide a stronger price signal (financial disincentive) to high water use. They are characterized
by an increasing unit price of water for incremental water block or tier.
Both the UAC at its February 2, 2011 meeting and the Finance Committee at its March 1, 2011
meeting indicated agreement with the staff recommendation on the annual revenue increase of
12.5%, the revenue-neutral rate adjustments between distinct rate classes reflecting the relative
cost to provide service, and the addition of tiers to residential and commercial rate classes. The
UAC and the Finance Committee, however, voted differing amendments to the “within” class
rate designs, particularly regarding the allocation of costs between fixed and volumetric rate
recovery mechanisms.
The UAC voted by five to two in favor of recommending that the Council adopt the rates
proposed at the February 2011 meeting with the following modifications:
·Residential tier 1 and tier 2 prices would be increased slightly from current prices, and
the additional revenue would be used to lower the fixed service charges;
·There would be no bill reduction for commercial customers as a result of proposed rate
revisions.
The Finance Committee voted by three to one in favor of recommending that the Council adopt
the rates proposed at the March 2011 meeting with the following modification:
·Fixed service charges to be increased to 50% of the Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
recommendation.
Table 1 shows the current and proposed water rates incorporating Finance Committee’s
modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W3, W4 and W7 rate schedules.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Table 1 -Proposed Rates for FY 2012
Current Rates Proposed Rates Change
Rate Schedule Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
$
(per ccf)
Percent
Change
W1 –Residential First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.600 -$0.349 -8.8%
Over 7 ccf $5.624 7-29 ccf $6.080 $0.456 8.1%
Over 29 ccf $7.640 $2.016 35.8%
W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 First 14 ccf $4.486 -$0.460 -9.3%
Over 14 ccf $4.946 $0.000 0.0%
W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $6.325 $1.379 27.9%
Rate Schedule Meter
Size
Current
Monthly
Charge
Proposed
Monthly
Charge
Change ($)Change (%)
Residential / Commercial 5/8 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 3/4 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1”$6.50 $13.00 $6.50 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1 1/2 ”$12.27 $27.00 $14.73 120.0%
Residential / Commercial 2”$19.37 $43.00 $23.63 122.0%
Commercial 3”$77.65 $114.00 $36.35 46.8%
Commercial 4”$130.60 $195.00 $64.40 49.3%
Commercial 6”$260.43 $406.00 $145.57 55.9%
Commercial 8” $383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Commercial 10”$383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Private Fire Service 4”$4.20 $7.27 $3.07 73.1%
Private Fire Service 6”$7.00 $16.13 $9.13 130.4%
Private Fire Service 8”$10.75 $28.53 $17.78 165.4%
Private Fire Service 10”$15.75 $44.48 $28.73 182.4%
Discussion
The Water Utility’s revenue requirement increase is primarily driven by the rapidly rising cost of
water supply. The City of Palo Alto (City)’s water supply costs are projected to increase by 37
percent in the next fiscal year and double by 2016, largely as a result of the infrastructure
projects currently undertaken by the City’s primary water supplier, the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC). SFPUC’s $4.6 billion initiative includes the repair, replacement
and seismic upgrades of the regional system’s deteriorating pipelines, tunnels, dams, reservoirs,
pump stations and other facilities. The City Council supports this program (CMR: 311:00), the
cost of which is shared by all of the SFPUC’s water customers.
Safe and reliable water delivery is also a local priority. The Water Utility has planned capital
improvement projects for our local City water supply infrastructure, including necessary seismic
retrofitting of Palo Alto’s water tanks and this is reflected in the new rates.
Customer Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 2 shows the impact of the proposed rate increase on customer bills based on different
consumption levels for the residential and commercial classes.
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Table 2: Impact of Proposed Rate Increase on Customer Bills
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Current
Monthly
Bill ($)
Proposed
Monthly
Bill ($)
Increase
Amount
($)
Percent
Increase
Small Residential (5/8” Meter)
6 $ 28.69 $ 31.60 $2.91 10.1%
Medium Residential (5/8” Meter)
14 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%
Large Residential (5/8” Meter)
35 190.12 $ 217.28 27.17 14.3%
Medium Commercial (3" Meter)
300 1,561.45 1,591.36 29.91 1.9%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter)1200 6,195.63 6,334.76 139.13 2.2%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter) (irrigation only) (W-7)3000 15,098.43 19,381.00 4,282.57 28.4%
If approved by Council, the proposed $3.4 million increase for FY 2012 results in a total revenue
increase of $2.5 million (17%) from the residential customers and $0.9 million (8%) from the
business customers. The impact of the proposed FY 2012 water rate adjustments is an
additional $8.23 on an average1 residential customer’s current monthly water utility bill of
$72.01. The impact on an individual customer will vary depending on customer class and
individual customer water usage levels.
Comparison of Palo Alto Water Rates and Surrounding Cities
For several years, Palo Alto's retail water rates have generally been higher than those in
surrounding areas. Staff initiated a Benchmark Study for the Water Utility in May 2010 and
presented its findings to the UAC in October 2010 and to the Finance Committee in November
2010 and submitted to the Council in March 2011. The objective of the study was to develop
benchmarks and to provide insight as to the main reasons for the higher water rates in Palo
Alto. The findings of this study highlighted some key areas such as more spending by Palo Alto
for replacement of aging infrastructure; lack of access to lower cost water supply; more
expensive service terrain to serve; higher quality of service; and higher rent payment for its use
of real estate in the service territory. Rent charges for the Water Utility’s use of real estate in
the service territory are adjusted annually to market value based on a survey conducted by the
City.
Table 3 below, which compares monthly water bills using municipal water rates as of January 1,
2011 for Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Menlo Park, indicates that the average
residential customer in surrounding cities pays approximately 24% less than the average Palo
1 Average residential customer is defined as a single family customer with 5/8” meter using 14 ccf (hundred cubic
feet) of water per month.
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Alto residential customer. The residential bill comparison with the average benchmark city is
seven percentage points lower this year compared to the same period a year ago as other cities
facing similar cost increases have begun raising their water rates as well. There are indications
that nearby cities that purchase water supplies from the SFPUC will continue to raise rates in FY
20122. At this time, the certainty or magnitude of their rate increases is not known.
Table 3 –Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison (rates in effect as of Jan. 1, 2011)
Water
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
Average
Benchmark
(%)
Diff.
Small 6 $28.69 $38.95 $33.07 $20.78 $16.44 $27.31 -4.8%
Average 14 $72.01 $73.14 $60.37 $48.04 $38.36 $54.97 -23.7%
Large 35 $190.12 $165.38 $185.45 $153.21 $95.90 $149.98 -21.1%
Difference from CPAU 1.6%-16.2%-33.3%-46.7%-23.7%
Proposition 218 Water Rate Increase Procedure
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements
that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property-related fee. Since
Proposition 218 applies to the water rate increases described here, the City must provide
written notice by mail to water customers subject to the proposed fees (notices were mailed
April 25, 2011), followed by a public hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed
(the June 13, 2011 Council meeting). Per the requirements, the notice included the amount of
the fee, the basis upon which the fee is calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date, time
and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests against
the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee.
Possibility of Water Use Restrictions due to Water Shortage
In the event of a water shortage, the SFPUC will declare a water shortage emergency and
impose mandatory water use reductions. If this action is taken, then staff will return to the
Council with an updated proposal for a rate adjustment and water rate schedules. Staff does
not expect a water shortage for FY 2012 at this time.
Board/Commission Review and Recommendations
The Finance Committee considered staff’s recommendation at its March 1, 2011 meeting. The
Committee members discussed the five-year financial projections and the possible impacts on
the reserve levels. They also discussed the rate design changes proposed by staff and the UAC,
including the cost of service adjustments between customer classes,the impact of increasing
the fixed service charge component in one year, and the level and effectiveness of the
2 Based on the FY 2009 BAWSCA survey, the share of SFPUC as source of water supply was 89% for Menlo Park,
100% for Redwood City, 86% for Mountain View, and 12% for Santa Clara.
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1628)
volumetric rates. Motions were made to direct staff to return to the Finance Committee with
various alternatives to the fixed and volumetric rate components.
The Finance Committee voted by three to one in favor of recommending that the City Council
approve staff’s and the UAC’s recommended Water Utility Rate Adjustments with the following
amendment:
·Fixed service charges to be increased to 50%of COSA recommendation.
An excerpt of the minutes from the Finance Committees March 1, 2011 meeting are provided
as Attachment G.
Resource Impact
Approval of this rate proposal will increase the Water Fund retail sales revenues by
approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies.
Environmental Review
The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a)(1) and (3).
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution for Water Rate Changes effective July 1 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment B: W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment C: W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment D: W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment E: W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment F: Staff Report to Finance Committee (PDF)
·Attachment G: Excerpts from Finance Committee Meeting Minutes 3-1-11 (PDF)
·Prop 218 Water Protests (PDF)
Prepared By:Ipek Connolly, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60
Tier 2 usage ........................................................................................................................ 6.08
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)...................................................................................... 7.64
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 6.50
Deleted: 12.27
Deleted: 19.37
Deleted: 77.65
Deleted: 130.60
Deleted: 260.43
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 3.949
Deleted: (All usage over 100% of Tier
1)
Deleted: 5.624
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level
of 0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29 ccf.
For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 33
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection....................................................................................................... $7.27
6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13
8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53
10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.20
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: $ 7.00
Deleted: $ 10.75
Deleted: $ 15.75
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2
5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 ........................................................................................................................ $4.486
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................ 4.946
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Per ccf
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $6.325
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1398)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 3/1/2011
March 01, 2011 Page 1 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Title: Water Utility Rate Changes
Subject: Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long Term Financial
Projections
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution
to:
1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached.
The recommended rate increase will trigger the notice and protest hearing procedures under
Proposition 218.
Executive Summary
This report discusses the projected costs and revenue requirements for the Water Fund for FY
2012 through FY 2016, as well as recommended rate revisions for FY 2012.
Staff assessed major cost drivers and expected costs, the short-term risks, reviewed reserve
guidelines, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five
years. Staff projects a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requests a revenue
requirement increase of $3.4 million or an average rate increase of 12.5%, for FY 2012 followed
by additional rate increases of 17%, 16% and 8% for FY 2013 through FY 2015. Due to sufficient
reserve levels in the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (WRSR), the remaining shortfall of $2.8
million in FY 2012 will be drawn out of the reserves. Staff requests the Finance Committee
recommend adoption of rate changes for FY 2012 only at this time. The average rate
adjustments projected for FY 2013 through FY 2016 are provided for information purposes and
are subject to change. The proposed rate adjustments achieve a gradual increase of the revenue
stream required to fund the expected operating expenses facing the Water Fund over the next
five years. The projected adjustments achieve the goals of ensuring that the balance of the
Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) is adequate and within the Council-approved reserve
March 01, 2011 Page 2 of 19
(ID # 1398)
guideline levels for FY 2012 and for the long-term forecast horizon. In the interim years of FY
2013 and FY 2014, W-RSR is projected to go below the minimum guidelines but recover starting
in FY 2015 and end within the guidelines at the end of the forecast horizon.
In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC)
and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect
to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City of Palo Alto (City), utilizing
cost of service analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain
rate making objectives. Staff recommends, in concurrence with these discussions and direction
provided by the UAC and the Finance Committee, a re-allocation of revenue collection by rate
class. The revenue-neutral rate adjustments result in an average rate increase of 4.2% for the
residential class, an average rate decrease of 9.9% for the commercial rate class, an average
increase of 14.2% for the irrigation rate class, and an average increase of 93% for the private fire
hydrant rate class. At its February 2, 2011 meeting, the UAC indicated acceptance of staff
recommendation on the cost of service adjustments between various customer classes. The
UAC voted 5-2 on staff’s proposal with amendments to the “within” class rate designs,
particularly regarding the allocation of costs between fixed and volumetric rate recovery
mechanisms and the manner in which the additional $3.4 million in cost increases are proposed
to be recovered.
If approved by Council, the proposed $3.4 million increase for FY 2012 results in a total revenue
increase of $2.5 million (17%) from the residential customers and $0.9 million (8%) from the
business customers.The impact of the proposed FY 2012 water rate adjustments is an
additional $10.07 on an average residential customer’s current monthly water utility bill of
$72.01. The impact on an individual customer will vary depending on customer class and
individual customer water usage levels.
Background
The City’s Water Utility (Utility) serves about 20,000 customers over an area of approximately
26 square miles. The City’s average daily consumption of water in FY 2010 was 10.2 million
gallons per day (mgd) or 5.0 million ccf (hundred cubic feet) of water for the year. The Utility is
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the system and purchases all of its water
from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through a contract that runs
through June 2034.
In order to maintain the financial viability of the Utility, staff conducts an annual review of
major cost drivers and expected costs facing the utility; evaluates risks and adequacy of
reserves; and determines the revenue requirements of the Water Fund for the next five years.
The revenue requirements and resulting rate adjustment targets depend on a number of
factors. They include sales projections,water supply costs, distribution system operating and
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)expenses, prudent funding of the Water Rate Stabilization
Reserve (W-RSR), the Emergency Plant Replacement (EPR) Reserve, and debt service payments.
Any change in these factors can trigger an adjustment to the revenue requirement. During the
budget process, staff forecasts customer load, revenues and utility expenses to quantify the
March 01, 2011 Page 3 of 19
(ID # 1398)
annual revenue requirement. Changes to forecasted revenues or expenses are reflected in
adjustments to the budget during the mid-year budget adjustment process.
In FY 2010, staff hired Utility Financial Solutions, LLC (UFS), an external consulting firm to
conduct a cost of service analysis (COSA). COSAs are conducted to review utility rate structures
and the alignment of revenues by customer class with the cost of providing service to each
customer class. COSAs also fulfill Proposition 218 requirements for determining the proper
allocation of costs to customers. Based on the results of the COSA, and a review of existing
Water Utility rate structures, staff analyzed various alternative rate structures to ensure
equitable rates for all customer classes. Staff discussed with the UAC at its October 2010
meeting and the Finance Committee at its November 2010 meeting various alternatives to
water rate structures in order to meet certain rate making objectives, and general
recommendations from those meetings are incorporated in this report.
Discussion
Financial Projections
Table 1 below shows financial projections for the Water Fund for FY 2010 to FY 2016. For FY
2010, both budgeted and realized actuals based on City’s Audited Financial Report (CAFR) are
shown. For FY 2011, both budgeted and projected financial expectations are shown. The
projected column for FY 2011 reflects revised Retail Sales Revenue and Wholesale Water
Purchase Costs based on the actual water consumption levels realized in the first half of the
year, and revised projections for the second half.
Cost Drivers
Total expenses1 were $31.2 million in FY 2010. This is $2.9 million higher than budgeted due
mainly to debt financing expenses associated with the Water Bond issued that year. This
overage was mitigated somewhat by lower than expected purchase costs and operations
expense. In FY 2011, total expenses are expected to be slightly lower than budgeted, reaching
$32.0 million as a result of lower than expected water use in Palo Alto. Starting in FY 2012,
however, total expenses are projected to increase sharply, reaching $42.4 million in FY 2016,
driven in large part by increases in water supply purchase costs and CIP-related expenses.
1 Refers to Row 20 in Table 1: Total expenses excluding Bond Financed Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
March 01, 2011 Page 4 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 1
Five-Year Financial Plan –Projected Costs (in $thousands)
$(000')s
Adopted Adopted
Budget Actual Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 % CHANGE IN RETAIL RATE 5.0%5.0%0.0%0.0%12.5%17.0%16.0%8.0%0.0%
2 PROJECTED SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE ($/CCF)5.21 5.23 5.21 5.21 5.86 6.85 7.95 8.59 8.59
3 PROJECTED COMMODITY COST ($/CCF)1.70 1.66 2.00 1.92 2.57 2.96 3.17 3.37 3.84
4 SALES UNITS (THOUSAND CCFs)5,543 4,955 5,504 5,143 5,256 5,195 5,170 5,143 5,120
5 PROJECTED CHANGE IN RETAIL SALES REVENUE 1,375 1,234 0 0 3,422 5,174 5,670 3,272 0
6 REVENUE
7 Utilities Retail Sales 28,948 25,851 28,808 26,926 30,795 35,539 41,013 44,174 44,113
8 Service Connection & Capacity Fees 682 694 692 692 767 776 785 795 750
9 Other Revenues plus Transfers In 131 648 766 766 158 159 161 162 162
10 Interest & Gain or Loss on Investment 1,265 1,375 1,050 1,050 595 665 627 976 1,449
11 Sub Total 31,026 28,568 31,316 29,434 32,314 37,140 42,586 46,107 46,475
12 CIP Bond Proceeds / Reserve 35,000 35,000 3,500 3,500 0 0 0 8,000 16,000
13 Total Sources of Funds 66,026 63,568 34,816 32,934 32,314 37,140 42,586 54,107 62,475
14 OPERATING EXPENSE
15 Water Supply Purhcases 10,354 9,061 12,043 10,834 14,790 16,840 17,949 18,986 21,541
16 Operations 10,094 8,428 10,721 10,721 10,603 10,709 10,816 10,924 11,034
17 Debt Service & Other Related 775 5,379 2,981 2,981 2,734 2,741 2,753 2,762 2,778
18 Rent 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,128 2,150 2,171 2,193 2,215
19 CIP (Non-Bonded)4,914 6,189 5,348 5,348 4,869 9,924 9,413 5,051 4,871
20 Sub Total 28,244 31,165 33,201 31,992 35,124 42,364 43,102 39,916 42,439
21 CIP (Bonded)22,500 22,500 3,500 3,500 8,000 16,000
22 Total Uses of Funds 50,744 53,665 36,701 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 47,916 58,439
23
24 Into/ (Out of) Reserves 15,282 9,903 (1,885)(2,558)(2,811)(5,224)(516)6,191 4,036
25
26 Ending Rate Stabilization Reserve 14,089 13,536 10,851 10,978 8,167 2,943 2,427 8,618 12,654
27 Portion held for Bond CIP 3,500 0
28 Ending Plant Replacement Reserve 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
29 Ending Debt Service Reserve 5,080 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347
30
31 Short Term Assessment of Risks 3,765 3,765 3,766 4,168 4,169 5,190
32 Rate Stabilization Guidelines
33 Miniumum 4,330 3,887 4,300 4,017 4,619 5,342 6,166 6,625 6,596
34 Maximum 8,660 7,774 8,600 8,035 9,238 10,684 12,332 13,250 13,191
35
Fiscal Year
Date: Nov 30, 2010
City of Palo Alto
Water Utility Financial Projections
Water supply costs are projected to more than double from their current levels of $10.8 million
in FY 2011 to $21.5 million in FY 2016. This is due to planned infrastructure upgrade projects
that are being undertaken by the City’s primary water supplier, the SFPUC. The City Council
supports this infrastructure upgrade effort as it will repair and upgrade the regional water
supply system (CMR: 311:00). All of the SFPUC’s water customers share the cost of this project.
Chart 1 presents the SFPUC’s wholesale water prices for both the historical period from 1971 to
2011 and projections through 2021, as of January 2011. The latest wholesale price projections
are significantly higher than last year’s projections. This is primarily due to lower water use by
all SFPUC’s water customers and the fact that SFPUC’s water system costs are all fixed and not
dependent on water use levels. SFPUC is currently reviewing its wholesale water rate structures
and may propose a new rate setting approach for FY 2012. Depending on the outcome of the
rate setting mechanism adopted by SFPUC, Palo Alto’s water supply costs are projected to
increase from $10.8 million in FY 2011 to between $14.4 and $15.6 million in FY 2012. Staff
March 01, 2011 Page 5 of 19
(ID # 1398)
assumed $14.8 million for the financial projections presented in this report based on an earlier
analysis.
Chart 1
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
2021
Commodity Cost ($/AF)
SFPUC's Wholesale Water Prices
Actual Rates
February 2010 Projection
February 2011 Projection
Another sizeable expenditure is for the new CIP projects planned for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
Recent investigations of Palo Alto’s water storage tanks have shown the need for additional
retrofits required for seismic protection as well as improvements needed for tank coatings.
These projects are projected to take three years, with costs anticipated to be $2.7 million in FY
2012, $4.0 million in FY 2013, and $4.4 million in FY 2014. Due to the new project costs
anticipated for FY 2012, an existing water main replacement project2 of $3.2 million will be
deferred from FY 2012 to FY 2013.
Bond-funded CIP projects in FY 2010 include the Water Reservoir and Well Rehabilitation
project, which is proceeding as planned. Staff is also considering another large capital project to
extend the recycled water distribution system that may impact the Water Fund within the five-
year forecast horizon. The capital expenditure for this project could total over $32 million and
significant expenditures could start in FY 2015. The sources of funds for the project have not
been identified at this time, but are likely to include a combination of state and federal grants
and a state low interest loan. Additional funds for the recycled water project could come from
2 Water Main Replacement Project # 25.
March 01, 2011 Page 6 of 19
(ID # 1398)
project partners that have not yet been identified and bond proceeds for the balance of the
project costs.
For the other cost items, the Debt Service payments reflect ongoing payments on the two
outstanding water bonds of $775 thousand (2002 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A) and $2.0
million (2009 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A). Debt Service charges for FY 2010 also include
$3.8 million for the water reservoir and well rehabilitation bond issuance.
Staff projects a long-term net cost increase of 1% per year in other operating expenditures such
as operations, maintenance and administration costs, allocated cost plan and Utilities
administration charges, rents, and other transfers.This conservative assumption reflects the
current expectations for the economic activity for the region. Depending on the final outcome
of labor negotiations and other budgetary decisions, final Operating Budget proposals will be
determined and presented to the Finance Committee at its May 2011 meeting.
Revenue Projections
Retail Sales constitute the largest source of revenue for the Water Fund. In FY 2010, total Retail
Sales amounted to $25.8 million. This was $3.1 million (10.7%) lower than budgeted. Water
demand projections are discussed in detail in the following section. Other revenues in FY 2010
include Service Connection and Capacity Fees of $694,000 and Transfers In of $648,000.
Interest and Gains on Investments totaled $1.4 million in FY 2010. Additionally, the City issued
Water Bonds of $35.0 million to finance the Emergency Reservoir and Well Rehabilitation
Project during FY 2010. Going forward, the Utility plans to acquire external funding3 for the
recycled water project related expenses shown for FY 2015 and FY 2016. Interest and Gains on
Investments in future years are calculated assuming a 3% return on investment.
Water Demand
Water demand has a significant impact on the financial position of the Water Fund. A 1% drop
in water demand results in a 0.95% loss in sales revenue or 0.87% loss in total revenue, and
since most costs facing the water utility are fixed, this results in a corresponding need to
increase water revenues and, therefore, rates.
Water demand in the City has been declining since its peak in the early 1970’s. During the last
forty years, the City and the region experienced two periods of drought, the first one during
1976-77, and the second one lasting a longer time span from 1987 through 1992. The City
aggressively pursued water conservation and community outreach programs during these
years. Coupled with drought rates, these measures resulted in an average of 38% reduction in
water consumption in the City during each occurrence. As can be seen in Chart 2, while some of
the consumption resumed after the drought was over, the City’s water use levels nevertheless
have declined since 2000 despite the growth in population and employment. While some of the
decrease was due to the availability of recycled water, significant long term reduction in water
3 Table 1 Row 12 and Row 21 –CIP Bond Proceeds and Expenses of $8.0 million in FY 2015 and $16.0 million in FY
2016
March 01, 2011 Page 7 of 19
(ID # 1398)
demand was achieved as a result of continuous improvements in building plumbing codes,
various City ordinances, and resulting investments in water efficient equipment.
Recently, the region as well as the City has been experiencing another significant decline in the
demand for water. Water consumption levels observed in FY 2010 were the lowest since the
drought of 1992. The recent decline in water use is attributable to a combination of factors
including the regional weather conditions, the state of the economy and the effect of the City’s
continuing water conservation effort. The City’s water consumption in FY 2010 was 9% lower
than consumption in FY 2009 and 14% lower than consumption in FY 2008.
For financial forecasting purposes the question is how the City’s and the region’s water
consumption will continue into the future. In order to evaluate the impact of water demand on
the financial forecast for the Water Fund, three scenarios were developed.
Under the base case scenario, water demand increases by 3.6% in FY 2011, but due to slow
economic recovery and expected rate increases during the earlier part of the forecast horizon,
it is projected to decrease at an average rate of 0.7% per year for the following three years.
With the expected recovery taking effect during the latter part of the forecast horizon, demand
is expected to gradually increase at an average rate of 0.8% per year for the rest of the forecast
horizon. The base case also reflects the expected impact of planned water conservation
program implementation to meet goals in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Under the
low scenario, water demand decreases an additional 5.4% in FY 2011, followed by a 1.0% per
year decline throughout the forecast horizon. In contrast, under the high scenario, water
demand increases by 8.9% in FY 2011, followed by a 1.5% per year increase for the rest of the
forecast horizon.
Chart 2 presents the historical water consumption levels in the City from FY 1960 through FY
2010 and the results of the demand scenarios analyzed. The financial projections presented in
this report are based on the base case scenario for water demand. The sensitivity of the
projections to the low and high demand scenarios is presented in the reserves and risk
assessment section.
March 01, 2011 Page 8 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Chart 2
Palo Alto Water Consumption
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Millions
Fiscal Year
Annual Usage (CCF/year)
High
Base
Low
ForecastActual
Revenue Requirement
The revenue requirement of the Water Fund is the total amount of revenue that the Utility
must collect in order to meet its operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, water supply
purchases, debt service payments and rate-financed CIP expenditures. Without a rate
adjustment, under the base scenario demand forecast, the Water Fund is projected to have a
revenue shortfall of $6.2 million and $13.1 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 respectively. Due to
its healthy reserves in FY 2011, staff recommends smoothed rate increases of 12.5% for FY 2012
and 17% for FY 2013 rather than a smaller increase in FY 2012 and a very large (greater than
20%) increase in FY 2013.
As discussed earlier, the revenue requirement in the Water Fund is very sensitive to demand
projections. For example, even with the recommended rate adjustments, under the low
demand scenario, the Water Fund would need an additional $3.7 million in FY 2012, and $4.3
million in FY 2013, in order to maintain reserves at the same levels as in the base scenario.
Conversely under the high demand scenario, the revenue shortfall would be much lower,
estimated to be $1.4 million and $3.8 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 respectively.
Reserves and Risk Assessment
The Water Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) Guidelines are established by the City
Council. The Council reviews reserve adequacy periodically and adjusts the guidelines as
needed. The W-RSR Guidelines were lowered in June 2009 (CMR:281:09) from 50% and 20% to
30% and 15% of sales revenues for maximum and minimum reserve levels, respectively.
March 01, 2011 Page 9 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Additionally, as required by the guidelines, staff performs an annual assessment of short-term
risks for the fund. This analysis involves estimating the revenue shortfall due to the maximum
observed budget-to-actual variance in one year during the past ten years, plus a variance of
10% of planned CIP expenditures for the budget year.
Table 2 summarizes the short-term risk assessment values for FY 2012 and FY 2013 and the
minimum and maximum guideline levels for the W-RSR. With the proposed 12.5% and 17%
rate increases for FY 2012 and FY 2013, respectively, the estimated end-of-year balance for the
W-RSR is $7.9 million in FY 2012 and $2.9 million in FY 2013. This is above both the short-term
risk assessment values as well as the minimum guidelines for FY 2012 but falls short of both the
risk assessment and minimum guideline levels for FY 2013. Staff is proposing approval of rate
adjustments for FY 2012 only at this time, and FY 2013 projections are provided for information
only. Staff will come back next year during the budget process for FY 2013 with the updated
financial projections and propose revised rate adjustments if necessary.
Due to the high volatility in water demand and the significant impact it can have on water utility
financials, staff performed an additional level of analysis this year using the low and high water
demand scenarios discussed earlier in this report. As shown in Table 2, the estimated end of
year balances under these scenarios would be significantly different. Staff will monitor and
report water sales levels throughout the fiscal year and may propose additional rate
adjustments during the mid-year budget adjustment process, if necessary.
Table 2: Water Rate Stabilization Reserve Guideline Levels and Short Term Risk Assessment
($M)
Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
As mentioned earlier, staff hired UFS in October 2009 to conduct a COSA study for the Water
Utility. UFS has experience in completing over 300 COSA studies for municipal utilities around
the nation. The analysis involved an in-depth review of utility financial data, customer class
load profiles, and the specific costs associated with providing utility services. It was conducted
based on industry-recognized procedures involving functional classification of utility assets and
expenses, and allocation of costs to customer classes based on the cost to provide the service.
Specific customer class attributes included quantity of service and/or resource consumed;
variability of use during the year; and, peak demands created on the system by each class.
WATER RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -BASE 11.0 7.9 2.9
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -LOW 8.7 2.1 (7.4)
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -HIGH 12.3 11.0 8.5
RISK ASSESSMENT 4.2 4.2 5.2
MINIMUM LEVEL GUIDELINES 4.6 4.6 5.3
MAXIMUM LEVEL GUIDELINES 9.3 9.2 10.7
March 01, 2011 Page 10 of 19
(ID # 1398)
The result of the study is a recommended adjustment to rate schedules to accurately align
future revenues collected from each customer class with the costs attributable to serving that
class. The original study used financial data prepared for FY 2011 Long Range Financial
Projections presented to the UAC in February 2010. The study also relied on billing data for all
of FY 2008 and part of FY 2009. The original study results were updated with FY 2010 customer
usage data as it became available in September 2010. Table 3 presents the summary of updated
COSA results for the Water Utility. Attachment G and H provide the Technical Memorandum for
the updated results and the original Cost of Service Study, respectively.
Table 3 –Summary of COSA Results
RATE
SCHEDULE
CUSTOMER CLASS PROJECTED
REVENUE
COST OF SERVICE COSA
ADJUSTMENT
W-1 RESIDENTIAL $14,304,899 $14,910,404 4%
W-4 COMMERCIAL 11,357,704 10,230,499 -10%
W-7 IRRIGATION 2,977,646 3,397,634 14%
W-3 PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS 25,388 49,039 93%(*)
W-3 PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS -78,253 N/A(**)
TOTAL $28,665,638 $28,665,830 0%
(*) The W3 Private Fire Hydrant COSA adjustment represents an adjustment to meter
charge based on meter size. For example, for a 4 inch meter, the current monthly
service charge of $4.20 must be increased to $7.20 to properly recover utility costs.
(**) The suggested adjustment for W3 Public Fire Hydrant service is an annual charge of
$78,253 for the Municipal Class. Currently the City is not charged for public fire hydrant
service.
Water Utility Customer Profile and Revenue Collection
As of June 2010, the City’s Water Utility had approximately 20,000 water service accounts.
Table 4 provides the distribution of accounts by customer segment and meter size. While
approximately 81% of customer accounts fall into the residential classification, this represents
49% of revenues. The remaining 51% of revenues are collected from commercial customers
through a combination of the W4, W7 and W3 rate schedules. Table 5 provides the distribution
of revenue by rate schedule and rate component. Currently, approximately 7% of revenues are
collected through the fixed monthly service charges and 93% through volumetric charges.
March 01, 2011 Page 11 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 4 –Number of Accounts (FY 2010)
Meter
Size RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IRRIGATION
PRIVATE FIRE
PROTECTION
W1 W4 W7 W3
5/8 "13,692 1,058 53 -
3/4 "526 80 7 -
1 "1,862 592 75 -
1 1/2"171 370 62 -
2"66 622 112 -
3"- 79 13 -
4"- 51 5 236
6"- 24 1 217
8"- 10 1 133
10"- - - 8
TOTAL 16,317 2,886 329 594
Table 5 –Sales Revenue (FY 2010)
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IRRIGATION
PRIVATE FIRE
PROTECTION TOTAL
W1 W4 W7 W3
1,049,849$ 596,544$ 73,887$ 47,296$ 1,797,900$
11,544,391$ 10,338,903$ 2,160,287$ 11,340$ 24,073,244$
12,594,239$ 10,935,448$ 2,234,173$ 58,636$ 25,871,144$ Total Revenue
REVENUE SOURCE
Service Charge
Volumetric Charge
Chart 3 shows the monthly water use profile for each customer class4. The residential sector’s
water use varies significantly throughout the year and peaks the highest, whereas the
commercial sector exhibits a flatter water use profile. Irrigation customers’ peak-to-average
ratio is the highest among all customer classes. Peak-to-average ratio is defined as the peak
month usage divided by the average usage during the year, and is used in determining how
some of the system costs are allocated among customer classes. The ratio is used to allocate
costs associated with meeting usage requirements in excess of base usage. Such costs include
operating and capital costs for plant and system capacity installed beyond that required to
meet average use consumption.A review of historical peak-to-average ratio over time as
presented in Chart 45 shows that residential customers’ ratio has increased while the ratio for
commercial customers has been in decline. As residential customers’ contribution to the peak-
to-average ratio increases relative to commercial customers so does their share of the cost of
service.
4 Customer use profile is based on two year averages of billing data covering FY 2009 and FY 2010. 5 Peak-to-average ratio is based on two year averages of billing data covering FY 2002 –2010.
March 01, 2011 Page 12 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Chart 3
Chart 4
Customer Class Peak to Average Water Use Ratio
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year
Ratio
Residential
Commercial
Irrigation
Current Rate Schedules and Recommended COSA Alignments
Current water rates consist of two components: a monthly customer charge (service charge)
and a commodity rate (volumetric rate). The monthly service charge per customer varies based
on meter size and the volumetric rate varies for residential customers based on usage tier. The
residential volumetric rates are also referred to as “inverted block rates” where the lower
usage tiers are charged at a rate that is lower than higher usage tiers. For non-residential
accounts a single volumetric rate is used. The Tier 1 usage block for residential accounts is
March 01, 2011 Page 13 of 19
(ID # 1398)
defined as 0.233 ccf per day or, for a 30 day billing period, 7 ccf per month. Any usage over 7
ccf per month falls into Tier 2. Table 6A shows current water rates and COSA results by meter
size and customer segment for the W1, W4 and W7 rate schedules, and Table 6B shows the
same for the W3 rate schedule.
Table 6A -Current Water Rates and COSA Results
(W1, W4 and W7 Rate Schedules)
Meter
Size $/Month Customer Segment Monthly
CCF $/CCF Meter
Size $/Month Customer Segment Monthly
CCF $/CCF
3/4 "$ 5.00 0-7 3.949$ 3/4 "$ 14.75 Residential(W-1)All 4.340$
5/8 "$ 5.00 > 7 5.624$ 5/8 "$ 14.75 Commercial (W-4)All 4.120$
1 "$ 6.50 Commercial(W-4)All 4.946$ 1 "$ 19.97 Irrigation(W-7)All 5.570$
1 1/2"$ 12.27 Irrigation (W-7)All 4.946$ 1 1/2"$ 42.49
2"$ 19.37 2"$ 67.49
3"$ 77.65 3"$ 150.05
4"$ 130.60 4"$ 259.52
6"$ 260.43 6"$ 551.53
8"$ 383.67 8"$ 903.63
CURRENT RATES
Residential(W-1)
(W1, W4 & W7)
Service Charge Volumetric Charge
COST OF SERVICE RATES
(W1, W4 & W7)
Service Charge Volumetric Charge
Table 6B -Current Water Rates and COSA Results
W3 (Private Fire Hydrants) Rate Schedule
Unit Meter Size CURRENT COSA
$/month 4 "$ 4.20 $ 7.27
$/month 6 "$ 7.00 $ 16.13
$/month 8 "$ 10.75 $ 28.53
$/month 10 "$ 15.75 $ 44.48
Volumetric $/ccf All $ 10.00 N/A
CURRENT AND COSA RATES
(W3)
Service Charge
Note that the COSA results are based on FY 2011 financial projections, and do not include an
overall system-wide rate adjustment of 12.5% for FY 2012.
Rate Design
Staff presented three rate design objectives to the UAC at its meeting in September 2010 and
to the Finance Committee at its meeting in October 2010. The objectives presented were to
adjust rate schedules to:
·reflect updated COSA,
·provide effective price signals to promote water conservation, and
·avoid rate/bill shock and financial hardship.
March 01, 2011 Page 14 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Based on the feedback received from both the UAC and the Finance Committee, staff proposed
a set of changes to the current rate structure for both the Residential (W-1) and the
Commercial (W-4) Rate Schedules and presented these changes to the UAC at its February 2011
meeting. With the proposed changes residential rates will increase from two to three tiers, and
tiered rates (two tiers) will be introduced for commercial rates. Tiered rates meet the objective
of providing effective price signals to promote water conservation and are in line with the
California Constitution Article X, Section 2 that requires that water resources of California “be
put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste and
unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented”. California’s Water
Code, Section 375 also explicitly allows water conservation measures to be adopted, including
water “rate structure designs.”
Although Palo Alto has sufficient water supplies from the SFPUC in normal water years, new
water supplies for the state are very expensive to develop. Many agencies, including the
SFPUC, are considering new projects to increase water supplies such as desalination, recycled
water, and new water storage reservoirs. These new water supply resources can cost from $5
per ccf to over $20 per ccf. Tiered rates that encourage water conservation create an incentive
to use water efficiently, comply with both AB 2882 and the California constitutional directive to
avoid unreasonable use and waste of water,and help avoid the need for these high cost
supplies.
Additionally, staff proposed to increase the monthly fixed service charge in line with the cost of
service for each rate schedule. Service charges represent the costs associated with serving
customers regardless of usage level or usage characteristics. Service costs include cost of meter
reading, meter installations, billing and collection, service connections, and a portion of the
operation and maintenance expenses of the distribution system and allocated administration
costs. When aligned with cost of service levels, revenue collection through fixed charges would
increase from 5% in FY 20116 to 15% in FY 2012. This is well within the California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) guideline level of less than 30% for conservation based rates.
With increased fixed service charges, additional tiers for both residential and commercial rate
structures, and the alignment of average rates with the cost of service by rate class, the
proposed changes meet the objectives set forth during the UAC and Finance Committee
meetings.
For the W3 and W7 rate schedules, no structural change to the rates is proposed; and proposed
FY 2012 rates consist of adjustments for COSA together with the 12.5% revenue requirement
increase applicable to the W7 rate schedule.
The UAC recommended by a vote of five to two to recommend the Council to adopt proposed
rates at the February 2011 meeting with some modifications. The requested modifications were
that:
6 Based on customer sales data used for cost of service study.
March 01, 2011 Page 15 of 19
(ID # 1398)
·Residential tier 1 and tier 2 prices would be increased slightly from current prices, and
the additional revenue would be used to lower the fixed service charges;
·There would be no bill reduction for commercial customers as a result of proposed rate
revisions.
After incorporating these modifications, the increase in fixed service charge component of the
bill is reduced from the original 200% proposed to the UAC in February 2011 to 50%. The
difference is reflected in the increase in the volumetric charges for residential tier 1 and tier 2.
Staff anticipates that with the projected 17% increase planned in FY 2013, full implementation
of fixed charges at cost of service levels will be achieved over a two year period. With these
changes, revenue collection through fixed charges is estimated to be 8%.
Table 7 shows the current and proposed water rates incorporating UAC modifications for FY
2012 for the W1, W4 and W7 rate schedules.
Table 7 -Proposed Rate for FY 2012
Meter
Size Current Proposed
3/4 "$ 5.00 $ 7.50
Monthly
CCF $/CCF Monthly
CCF $/CCF
5/8 "$ 5.00 $ 7.50 Tier 1 0-7 3.949$ 0 - 6 4.100$
1 "$ 6.50 $ 9.75 Tier 2 > 7 5.624$ 7 - 29 6.248$
1 1/2"$ 12.27 $ 18.41 Tier 3 --> 29 7.642$
2"$ 19.37 $ 29.06 Tier 1 All 4.946$ 0 - 14 4.769$
3"$ 77.65 $ 116.48 Tier 2 --> 14 4.946$
4"$ 130.60 $ 195.90 Irrigation (W-7)All All 4.946$ All 6.266$
6"$ 260.43 $ 390.65
8"$ 383.67 $ 575.51
Proposed
Service Charge ($/month)Volumetric Charge ($/CCF)
Rate Schedule Usage
Tiers
Current
Residential (W-1)
Commercial (W-4)
Customer Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 8 below shows the impact of the proposed rate increase on customer bills based on
different consumption levels for the residential and commercial classes.
March 01, 2011 Page 16 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 8: Impact of Proposed Rate Increase on Customer Bills
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Proposed
Monthly Bill
($)
Amount of
Proposed
Increase ($)
Percent
Increase
Small Residential (5/8” Meter)6 $ 32.10 $3.41 11.9%
Medium Residential (5/8” Meter)14 82.08 10.07 14.0%
Large Residential (5/8” Meter)35 221.66 31.54 16.6%
Medium Commercial (3" Meter)300 1,597.80 36.35 2.3%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter)1200 6,323.37 127.74 2.1%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter) (irrigation only) (W-7)3000 19,068.65 3,970.22 26.3%
Comparison of Palo Alto Water Rates and Surrounding Cities
For several years, Palo Alto's retail water rates have generally been higher than those in
surrounding areas. Staff initiated a Benchmark Study for the Water Utility in May 2010 and
presented its findings to the UAC in October 2010 and to the Finance Committee in November
2010. The objective of the study was to develop benchmarks and to provide insight as to the
main reasons for the higher water rates in Palo Alto. The findings of this study highlighted
some key areas such as more spending by Palo Alto for replacement of aging infrastructure;
lack of access to lower cost water supply; more expensive service terrain to serve; higher
quality of service; and higher rent payment for its use of real estate in the service territory.
Rent charges for the Water Utility’s use of real estate in the service territory are adjusted
annually to market value based on a survey conducted by the City.
Table 9 below, which compares monthly water bills using municipal water rates as of January 1,
2011 for Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Menlo Park, indicates that the average
residential customer in surrounding cities pays approximately 24 % less than the average Palo
Alto residential customer. The residential bill comparison with the average benchmark city is
seven percentage points lower this year compared to the same period a year ago as other cities
facing similar cost increases have begun raising their water rates as well. There are indications
that nearby cities that purchase water supplies from the SFPUC will continue to raise rates in FY
20127. At this time, the certainty or magnitude of their rate increases is not known.
7 Based on the FY 2009 BAWSCA survey, the share of SFPUC as source of water supply was 89% for Menlo Park,
100% for Redwood City, 86% for Mountain View, and 12% for Santa Clara.
March 01, 2011 Page 17 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 9 –Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison (rates in effect as of Jan. 1, 2011)
Water
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park1
Redwood
City
Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
Average
Benchmark
(%)
Diff.
Small 6 $28.69 $38.95 $33.07 $20.78 $16.44 $27.31 -4.8%
Average 14 $72.01 $73.14 $60.37 $48.04 $38.36 $54.97 -23.7%
Large 35 $190.12 $165.38 $185.45 $153.21 $95.90 $149.98 -21.1%
Difference from CPAU 1.6%-16.2%-33.3%-46.7%-23.7%
1. Menlo Park rates based on California Water Service-Bear Gulch district –proposed for
1/1/11
Proposition 218 Water Rate Increase Procedure
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements
that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property-related fee. Since
Proposition 218 applies to the water rate increases described here, the City must provide
written notice by mail to water customers subject to the proposed fees, followed by a public
hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed. The notice must include the amount
of the fee, the basis upon which the fee was calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date,
time and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests
against the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee.
Possibility of Water Use Restrictions due to Water Shortage
In the event of a water shortage, the SFPUC will declare a water shortage emergency and
impose mandatory water use reductions. If this action is taken, then staff will return to the
UAC with an updated proposal for a rate adjustment and water rate schedules. Staff does not
expect a water shortage for FY 2012 at this time.
Alternatives
Staff evaluated alternative revenue-neutral rate changes based on COSA recommendations,
and the rate making objectives identified. One alternative is to implement more tiers for both
residential and commercial rate schedules. This alternative was rejected due to the increased
complexity with this alternative and the fact that it would achieve effectively the same results
as the proposed rate structures. Another alternative is to introduce different tier usage blocks
based on meter size. This alternative has the advantage of addressing the size differences
between customers especially for commercial customers. This alternative was rejected due to
its complexity as well as the additional implementation costs required for billing system
configurations.
Board/Commission Review and Recommendations
The UAC considered staff’s recommendation at its February 2, 2011 meeting. The
Commissioners discussed in detail the rate design changes proposed by staff, including the cost
of service adjustments between customer classes, the impact of increasing the fixed service
charge component in one year, and the level and effectiveness of the volumetric rates. The
March 01, 2011 Page 18 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Commissioners also discussed the proposed 12.5% revenue requirement increase for 2012 and
that, under the current five-year projections, the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve would be
below the minimum guidelines of FY 2013 and FY 2014.
The Commission voted by five to two in favor of recommending that the City Council approve
staff’s recommended Water Utility Rate Adjustments with the following amendments:
a)The rate adjustment proposal by staff be modified so that no commercial customer’s bill
would be decreased;
b)The volumetric rates for residential customers for usage in tiers 1 and 2 be increased
and the fixed charges be reduced; and
c)The Council is made aware that the UAC is aware that the five-year financial projections
show that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve falls below the minimum
guideline level for two years.
Draft minutes from the UAC’s February 2, 2011 meeting are provided as Attachment I.
Resource Impact
Approval of this rate proposal will increase the Water Fund retail sales revenues by
approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies.
Environmental Review
The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a)(1) and (3).
ATTACHMENTS:
·A Water Fund Financial Projections (FY2012-FY2016)(PDF)
·Attachment A: Water Fund Financial Projections (FY2012-FY2016)(PDF)
·Attachment B: Utility Rate Schedule W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·B W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment C: Utility Rate Schedule W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·C W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment D: Utility Rate Schedule W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·D W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment E: Utility Rate Schedule W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·E W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment F: Draft Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF)
March 01, 2011 Page 19 of 19
(ID # 1398)
·F Draft Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment G: Water Technical Memorandum (DOC)
·G Water Technical Memorandum (PDF)
·Attachment H: Water Cost of Service Report (PDF)
·H Water Cost of Service Report (PDF)
·Attachment I: Draft UAC Minutes of February 2, 2011 (DOCX)
·I Draft Excerpted Minutes of February 2, 2011 UAC Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:Ipek Connolly, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval:James Keene, City Manager
Adopted Actual Adjusted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 % CHANGE IN RETAIL RATE 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 12.5% 17.0% 16.0% 8.0% 0.0%
2 SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE ($/CCF)5.21 5.23 5.21 5.86 6.85 7.95 8.59 8.59
3 SALES UNITS (CCFs)5,543 4,955 5,143 5,256 5,195 5,170 5,143 5,120
4 WATER UTILITY REVENUE
5 SALES REVENUE:27,493 24,679 26,783 27,373 30,438 35,437 40,896 43,971
6 RATE ADJUSTMENT 1,375 1,234 0 3,422 5,174 5,670 3,272 0
7 PRORATION IMPACT (57) (51)0 (143) (216) (236) (136)0
8 TOTAL ADJUSTED SALES 28,810 25,862 26,783 30,652 35,397 40,871 44,031 43,971
9 UNMETERED SALES/OTHER 138 (10)142 142 142 142 142 142
10 INTEREST 1,265 1,375 1,050 595 665 627 976 1,449
11 OTHER REVENUE 131 648 766 158 159 161 8,162 16,162
12 CONNECTION FEES 682 694 692 767 776 785 795 750
13 FROM RESERVES:
14 RATE STABILIZATION 0 0 6,058 2,811 5,224 516 0 0
15 CIP BOND PROCEEDS 35,000 35,000 000000
16 TOTAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES 66,026 63,568 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 54,107 62,475
17 OPERATING EXPENSES
18 PURCHASES 10,354 9,061 10,834 14,790 16,840 17,949 18,986 21,541
19 CUSTOMER DESIGN & CONN. (CIP)400 569 410 420 430 440 450 232
20 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT(CIP) - Nonbond 4,514 5,620 4,938 4,449 9,494 8,973 4,601 4,639
21 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT(CIP) - Bond 22,500 22,500 3,500 0 0 0 8,000 16,000
22 OPERATIONS, & MAINT, OTHER ADMIN.7,385 6,378 7,604 7,680 7,757 7,835 7,913 7,992
23 ALLOCATED CHARGES:
24 COST PLAN CHARGES & OTHER 1,106 410 1,076 1,087 1,097 1,108 1,119 1,131
25 UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION 1,346 1,171 1,600 1,616 1,632 1,648 1,664 1,681
26 TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITIES 47,604 45,709 29,962 30,042 37,251 37,953 42,734 53,216
27 DEBT SERVICE & RELATED 775 5,379 2,981 2,734 2,741 2,753 2,762 2,778
28 TRANSFERS:
29 RENT 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,128 2,150 2,171 2,193 2,215
30 OTHER TRANSFER 258 282 442 221 223 225 227 229
31 SUB-TOTAL TRANSFER 2,365 2,389 2,549 2,349 2,372 2,396 2,420 2,444
32 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 50,744 53,477 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 47,916 58,439
33 RESERVE ADDITIONS:
34 PLANT REPLACEMENT 00000000
35 RATE STABILIZATION 10,982 7,336 00006,191 4,036
36 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE 4,300 2,567 000000
37 TOTAL RESERVE ADDITIONS: 15,282 9,903 00006,191 4,036
38 TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT 66,026 63,380 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 54,107 62,475
39 RESERVES BALANCES
40 PLANT REPLACEMENT 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
41 RATE STABILIZATION 14,089 13,536 10,978 8,167 2,943 2,427 8,618 12,654
Portion set aside for Bond 3,500
42 CIP DEBT SERVICE 5,080 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347
43 TOTAL RESERVES BALANCES 20,169 21,383 15,325 12,514 7,290 6,774 12,965 17,001
44
45 Short Term Risk Assessment Value 3,765 3,765 4,168 4,169 5,190 9,249 9,938 9,893
46
47 Long Term Rate Stabilization Guidelines
48 RSR Minimum 4,330 3,887 4,017 4,619 5,342 6,166 6,625 6,596
49 RSR Maximum 8,660 7,774 8,035 9,238 10,684 12,332 13,250 13,191
50
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
City of Palo Alto Water Utility
WATER
Fiscal Year
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
S
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge:Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...........................................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4 inch meter ...........................................................................................................5.00 7.50
For 1 inch meter ...........................................................................................................6.50 9.75
For 1 1/2 inch meter ...........................................................................................................12.27
18.41
For 2-inch meter ...........................................................................................................19.37
29.06
For 3-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
383.67575.51
Commodity Rate:(To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage .......................................................................................................................
$3.9494.100
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1).......................................................................5.624
6.248
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)......................................................................................7.642
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection .......................................................................$6.00
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2.Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.233 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level of
0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 67 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29
ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation
11.
{End}
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 11-1-20087-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 7-1-199211-1-2008 Sheet No
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
1.Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant....................................................................................................$5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection ......................................................................................................$4.207.27
6-inch connection ...................................................................................................... $ 7.0016.13
8-inch connection ......................................................................................................$ 10.7528.53
10-inch connection ....................................................................................................$ 15.7544.48
2.Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage..........................................................................................................$10.00
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2.No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3.For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 11-1-20087-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 7-1-199211-1-2008 Sheet No
4.Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
5.Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6.Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 1-inch meter ...............................................................................................$6.509.75
For 1 ½-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$12.2718.41
For 2-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$19.3729.06
For 3-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
Tier 1 Per ccf .......................................................................................................................
$4.9464.769
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................4.946
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2.Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 1-inch meter ...............................................................................................$6.509.75
For 1 1/2 inch meter ...............................................................................................
$12.2718.41
For 2-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$19.3729.06
For 3-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
Per Ccf .......................................................................................................................
$4.9466.226
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility
Rate Schedules W-1, -3, W-4 and W-7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
June _, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed water rate increases; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the
public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and
property owners subject to the proposed water rate increases;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-3-1 and W-3-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to
read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet
operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
DATE: December 7, 2010
PREPARED FOR: City of Palo Alto Utilities – Water Department
PREPARED BY: Mark Beauchamp, CPA/Utility Financial Solutions
SUBJECT: Cost of Service with Updated Billing Units
Purpose
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to compare the results of the cost of service study with
updated billing statistics for 2010. The original study was based on fiscal years 2008 and 2009 usage
patterns for each customer class. This update used the original costs with updated usage patterns using 2009
and 2010. This memorandum compares the summary results of original study with the updated usage
patterns.
Water Cost of Service Results:
Table One – Comparison of Original Study Results with Updated Study
Customer Class Original Study
With 2010 Billing
Statistics Original Study
With 2010 Billing
Statistics
W-1 Residential 15,219,495$ 14,910,404$ 6% 4%
W-4 Commercial 10,210,142 10,230,499 -10% -10%
W-7 Irrigation 3,108,767 3,397,634 4% 14%
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174 49,039 94% 93%
Public Fire Protection - Hydrants 78,253 78,253
Total 28,665,830$ 28,665,830$
The update of the usage patterns had the most significant impact on the W-7 Irrigation class of service. This
class uses a majority of its usage during months when customers sprinkle lawns. The cost of service study
averages the usage over a two year period in order to smooth out annual variation in billing statistics; despite
this however, there can be significant changes in cost of service results during extremely dry years that
require substantial lawn sprinkling or years with substantial rainfall that limits the amount of lawn
sprinkling. The change resulted in a 10% change in cost of service results for the irrigation class, and a 2%
change in the results for the residential class. The change for commercial class and fire protection were
insignificant.
Page Two – Updated Water Study Results
The table below is the updated cost of service results for the monthly customer and usage charges:
Table Two – Comparison of cost based charges
Customer Class Meter Size
Using 2010
Billing
Statistics
Original
Study
Using 2010
Billing
Statistics
Original
Study
W-1 Residential 3/4 14.75$ 13.94$ 4.34$ 4.52$
W-1 1 19.97 18.54 4.34 4.52
W-1 1.5 42.49 39.27 4.34 4.52
W-1 2 67.49 61.77 4.34 4.52
W-4 Commercial 3/4 14.75 13.94 4.12 4.16
W-4 1 19.97 18.54 4.12 4.16
W-4 1.5 42.49 39.27 4.12 4.16
W-4 2 67.49 61.77 4.12 4.16
W-4 3 150.05 137.16 4.12 4.16
W-4 4 259.52 236.62 4.12 4.16
W-4 6 551.53 500.00 4.12 4.16
W-4 8 903.63 812.02 4.12 4.16
W-7 Irrigation 3/4 14.75 13.94 5.57 5.10
W-7 1 19.97 18.54 5.57 5.10
W-7 1.5 42.49 39.27 5.57 5.10
W-7 2 67.49 61.77 5.57 5.10
W-7 3 150.05 137.16 5.57 5.10
W-7 4 259.52 236.62 5.57 5.10
W-7 6 551.53 500.00 5.57 5.10
W-7 8 903.63 812.02 5.57 5.10
Monthly Meter Charges CCU Charges
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
WATER COST OF SERVICE & RATE STUDY
Fiscal Year 2011
2/3/2011 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO – WATER COST OF SERVICE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction 2
Utility Revenue Requirements 3
Cost of Service Summary 5
Cost of Service Components 12
Significant Assumptions 13
Accountants Compilation Report 14
2/3/2011 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared to provide the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) with a
water cost of service study and a comprehensive examination of its existing rate structures by an
outside party. Utility Financial Solutions was contracted to review revenue requirements and the
cost of providing service to CPAU’s water customers. This purpose of the study includes:
1) Determine Water Utility’s revenue requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 based on
budget and financial projections provided by Palo Alto staff
2) Allocate utility’s revenues requirements to customer classes
3) Identify the cost to provide service to customer classes
5) Review the current Water Utility rate structure and propose alternative rate structures.
6) If possible, propose rate structures to encourage conservation and efficient use of
resources
The report is structured in the following manner:
.
• Introduction
• Utility Revenue Requirements for Fiscal Year 2011
• Cost of Service Summary
• Recommended Rate Adjustment
• Cost of Service Components
• Significant Assumptions Used in Analysis
• Recommendations
• Compilation Report
2/3/2011 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
CPAU’s financial projections were used to evaluate the current and projected financial
statements. The table below is the accrual basis revenues and expenses for CPAU’s Water
Utility. (Cash basis is listed on page three of this report). CPAU’s projected rate adjustments are
incorporated into the financial projection with rate adjustments of 0.0% for FY 2011; 8% for FY
2012 and 9% for FY 2013 – FY 2015. The projected operating income for FY 2011 is $3.53
million and is projected to increase to $5.4 million in 2015.
Table One – Projected Financial Statements FY 2011 – FY 2015 (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
RATE ADJUSTMENT 0.0% 8.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
REVENUES
SALES REVENUES 28,666$ 31,336$ 34,179$ 37,291$ 40,687$
DISCOUNTS / UNMETERED 138 138 138 138 138
OTHER / OP TRANS IN 337 341 344 348 351
CONNECTION FEES / CAPACITY FEES 767 776 785 795 804
TOTAL REVENUES 29,907$ 32,590$ 35,445$ 38,571$ 41,980$
EXPENSES
SUPPLY 12,808$ 15,018$ 17,984$ 20,342$ 22,028$
DISTRIBUTION 5,201 5,254 5,306 5,359 5,413
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 1,612 1,628 1,645 1,661 1,678
ALLOCATED CHARGES 2,484 2,509 2,534 2,560 2,585
RENT AND TRANSFERS OUT 2,331 2,354 2,377 2,401 2,425
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 1,943 2,077 2,214 2,354 2,479
TOTAL O&M EXPENSES 26,380$ 28,839$ 32,060$ 34,676$ 36,608$
OPERATING INCOME 3,528$ 3,750$ 3,386$ 3,895$ 5,372$
NON OPERATING INCOME AND EXPENSES
INTEREST INCOME 1,265$ 804$ 731$ 1,160$ 1,714$
INTEREST EXPENSE (1,201) (1,227) (1,262) (1,308) (1,356)
TOTAL OTHER OPR. INCOME AND EXPENSES 64$ (423)$ (532)$ (148)$ 358$
NET INCOME 3,592$ 3,327$ 2,854$ 3,747$ 5,730$
2/3/2011 4
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
The table below is projected cash flows and cash reserves from FY 2011 through FY 2015. The
projected cash available for FY 2011 is $10.3 million (excluding cash committed to previous CIP
programs). Cash is projected to decline each year and approximate $8.0 million in FY 2015.
Table Two – Projected Cash Balance (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Add Net Income 3,592$ 3,327$ 2,854$ 3,747$ 5,730$
Add Back Depreciation Expense 1,943 2,077 2,214 2,354 2,479
Debt Service Principal 1,172 1,507 1,479 1,445 1,406
Cash Available from Operations 4,363$ 3,897$ 3,589$ 4,657$ 6,804$
Estimated Annual Capital Additions 5,348 5,479 5,612 5,003 5,106
Net Cash From Operations (985)$ (1,582)$ (2,023)$ (346)$ 1,697$
Beginning Cash Balance 14,437$ 13,452$ 11,870$ 9,847$ 9,501$
Ending Cash Balance 13,452 11,870 9,847 9,501 11,198
Bond Reserve Fund 3,155 3,155 3,155 3,155 3,155
Available Cash Reserves 10,297$ 8,715$ 6,692$ 6,346$ 8,043$
2/3/2011 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The purpose of a cost of service study is to allocate costs to customer classes based on quantity
of water consumed, variability of flow during the year, peak demands created on the system for
each class and costs associated with metering, billing and accounting. The cost of service study
is based on recognized procedures for allocating several categories of costs to customer
classifications. Costs were allocated in proportion to each classification's use of the facilities
and services.
The table below summarizes revenues projected from customers for FY 2011 and compares the
projected revenues with the cost of providing service to each class of customers.
Cost of Service = Cost of providing water service to customers
Projected Revenues = Projected revenues recovered from current rate design
Percent Difference = Variation between cost of service and current rate design
Positive = Percent increase to meet cost of service
Negative = Percent decrease to meet cost of service
Table Three – Cost of Service Summary
Class Cost of Service
Projected
Revenues
Percent
Difference
W-1 Residential 15,219,495$ 14,304,899$ 6%
W-4 Commercial 10,210,142 11,357,704 -10%
W-7 Irrigation 3,108,767 2,977,646 4%
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174 25,388 94%
Public Fire Protection - Hydrants 78,253 -
Total 28,665,830$ 28,665,638$ 0%
The cost of service study identified variations between the current rate design and cost of
service results a discussion of each class is listed below:
Residential Class - W-1 Rate Schedule
The cost of service results identified the need for a 6 percent overall rate adjustment for the
residential class. The variation between current charges and cost of service results are due to
reduced monthly meter charges, CPAU currently charges a $5.00/month meter charge, when
compared with cost of service charge of $13.94/month. (Please see table 9) CPAU may
consider placing greater increases in the monthly meter charge component and less of an
increase in the commodity component.
Irrigation Meters - W-7 Rate Schedule
Customers on the W-7 irrigation rate use a majority of water during the summer season and little
water the remainder of the year. The W-7 irrigation rate class contributes substantially to
CPAU’s peak system loadings and the cost of service results can vary significantly depending on
the weather patterns. The cost of service study identified a 4% increase in rates is needed to
meet cost of service requirements.
2/3/2011 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Commercial Class - W-4 Rate Schedule
The current rate charged to commercial customers is on average 10 percent greater than the
cost of providing the service. It is recommended the W-4 rate be adjusted to move the rate
closer to cost of service in future years.
Fire Hydrants – W-3 Rate Schedule
To meet cost of service requirements a 94% increase is needed for the W-3 rate (private fire
protection). Public fire protection (City Hydrants) is currently a service not allocated to the City
of Palo Alto. The total annual cost to operate and maintain public fire protection is $156,505. In
discussion with CPAU staff it was assumed 50% of the cost should be shared by all customer
classes to reflect the benefit that fire hydrants provide the entire water system. Flushing of the
hydrants helps to clean the water system and is a benefit to all users of the system. As a result,
only $78,253 (the remaining 50% of $156,505) was allocated directly to the public fire protection
– City Hydrants.
Table Four – Fire Hydrants Revenue Requirements
Cost of Service
Projected
Revenues
Percent
Difference
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174$ 25,388$ 94%
Public Fire Protection - City Hydrant 78,253 -
Fire Hydrants and Private Fire
Protection
*Public Fire Protection - City hydrants, $78,253 represents the full cost to be recovered.
**CPAU should consider increases to the monthly customer charges for private fire protection.
Table Five – W-3 - Comparison of Current Meter Charges and Cost of Service
Meter Size Current
Monthly Meter
Cost of
Service
W3 - Private Fire Service- 4 Inch 4.20$ 7.27$
W3 - Private Fire Service- 6 Inch 7.00 16.13
W3 - Private Fire Service- 8 Inch 10.75 28.53
W3 - Private Fire Service- 10 Inch 15.75 44.48
2/3/2011 7
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The allocation study was modeled after the “Base & Extra Capacity Method” for allocating costs
to customer classifications. The method is described in the 2007 and prior editions of the Water
Rates Manual, published by the American Water Works Association. The four basic categories of
cost responsibility are base, extra capacity, customer and fire protection costs. The following
discussions present a brief description of these costs and the manner in which they were
allocated.
Base Costs are costs that tend to vary with the quantity of water used, and include costs
associated with supplying, treating, pumping and distributing water to customers under average
load conditions, without the elements necessary to meet peak demands. Base costs are
allocated to customer classifications by their average daily usage.
Extra Capacity Costs are costs associated with meeting usage requirements in excess of the
base. They include operating and capital costs for plant and system capacity installed beyond
that required to meet average use consumption. The extra capacity costs are subdivided into two
categories; costs necessary to meet “maximum day extra demand” and costs to meet “maximum
hour extra demand”. The extra capacity costs are allocated to customer classifications based on
each class’s contribution to the systems maximum- day and-maximum hour usage.
Table Six - Classification Percentages between Base and Extra Capacity Costs:
Average Day Max Day Max Hour
CCF's 15,803 23,963 26,948
Average Day to Max Day Percent 66% 34%
Average Day to Max Hour Percent 59% 30% 11%
Costs related to investment in assets and a portion of the distribution costs are allocated 59
percent on usage (base costs); 30 percent on maximum day and 11 percent on maximum hour
(extra-capacity) The values were calculated using the peak to average ratios discussed below.
2/3/2011 8
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The table below identifies the ratios used to determine the extra capacity costs and is based on
the calculated peaking factor. Classes with higher ratios typically increase usage during peak
system times and results in greater use of system capacity. Listed below are peak ratios for
each customer type for 2008 and 2009, the average of the two years was used in the analysis to
allocate costs for 2011. (A factor of 1.0 was used for fire protection)
Table Seven – Peak to Average Usage Ratio
Customer Class
CCF Usage
during
peak month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
CCF Usage
during peak
month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
CCF Usage
during peak
month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
W1 - Residential 351,418 228,518 1.54 343,051 213,906 1.60 694,469 442,424 1.57
W2 - Contruction Water Use 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00
W3 - Private Fire Service 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00
W4 - Commercial 199,202 155,155 1.28 253,996 187,877 1.35 453,198 343,031 1.32
W7 - Irrigation 90,509 48,840 1.85 101,013 47,196 2.14 191,522 96,036 1.99
Total System 641,129 432,513 1.48 698,060 448,978 1.55 1,339,189 881,492 1.52
2008 Peak Factor 2009 Peak Factor Two Year Average
The peaking factor is based on the ratio between the usage during the peak month and average
usage during the year for each class. The residential peak ratio of 1.57 means the usage in the
peak month is 1.57 times greater than annual usage. The commercial class usage is relatively
constant during the year with a two year average peak to average ratio of 1.32. The least
efficient class is irrigation (W-7) with a two year average peak to average ratio of 1.99. The
peaking factors in Table Seven above were applied in the table below to calculate values for
base, maximum day and maximum hour.
Customer Class Annual Use
Average
Rate
Capacity
Factor
Total
Capacity
Extra
Capacity
Capacity
Factor
Total
Capacity
Extra
Capacity
W1 - Residential0.75 2,308,194 6,323.8 1.57 9,926 3,603 1.78 11,225 4,901
W1 - Residential1 447,514 1,226.1 1.57 1,925 698 1.78 2,176 950
W1 - Residential1.5 73,178 200.5 1.57 315 114 1.78 356 155
W1 - Residential2 41,011 112.4 1.57 176 64 1.78 199 87
W1 - Residential3 33 0.1 1.57 0 0 1.78 0 0
W3 - Private Fire Service-4 185 0.5 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-6 463 1.3 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-8 350 1.0 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-10 72 0.2 1.00 0 1.00 0
Public Fire Hydrants - - 1.00 - 1.00 -
W4 - Commercial-0.75 247,341 677.6 1.32 895 218 1.50 1,014 336
W4 - Commercial1 205,951 564.3 1.32 745 181 1.50 844 280
W4 - Commercial1.5 265,294 726.8 1.32 960 233 1.50 1,087 360
W4 - Commercial2 740,393 2,028.5 1.32 2,680 651 1.50 3,034 1,006
W4 - Commercial3 261,040 715.2 1.32 945 230 1.50 1,070 355
W4 - Commercial4 169,826 465.3 1.32 615 149 1.50 696 231
W4 - Commercial6 141,177 386.8 1.32 511 124 1.50 579 192
W4 - Commercial8 252,711 692.4 1.32 915 222 1.50 1,036 343
W7 - Irrigation0.75 10,683 29.3 1.99 58 29 2.16 63 34
W7 - Irrigation1 25,342 69.4 1.99 138 69 2.16 150 81
W7 - Irrigation1.5 72,049 197.4 1.99 394 196 2.16 426 229
W7 - Irrigation2 163,129 446.9 1.99 891 444 2.16 965 518
W7 - Irrigation3 100,716 275.9 1.99 550 274 2.16 596 320
W7 - Irrigation4 59,577 163.2 1.99 326 162 2.16 353 189
W7 - Irrigation6 111,558 305.6 1.99 610 304 2.16 660 355
W7 - Irrigation8 70,322 192.7 1.99 384 192 2.16 416 223
Total 5,768,111 15,803 23,963 8,160 26,948 11,145
Base Maximum Day Maximum Hour
2/3/2011 9
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Customer Costs (Meter Costs) are costs associated with serving customers regardless of usage
level or usage characteristics. Customer costs include the operation and maintenance expenses
related to meter installation, meter readings, billing and collecting. The customer costs are
allocated to each class based on the cost of installing meters and services and the cost of
providing customer service to different classes of customers. Customer costs considered fixed
and allocated to the customer charge component include the following items:
1. Cost of meter reading
2. Cost of meter installations
3. Cost of service connections
4. Forty percent of the operation and maintenance expenses of the distribution system
(Based on the ratio of Max Day to Average Day usage)
5. Billing & collection costs
6. Allocated amount of administration costs based on total expenses as a ratio of customer
cost expenses
7. Reduced by other revenue items based on total expenses as a ratio of customer cost
expenses
The tables below are meter cost ratios and the meter demand ratios used to determine customer
costs for each meter size.
Meter Cost Ratio (Initial Cost for CPAU to install a meter)
Meter Size -
Inches
Costs to
Install a
Meter in $
0.75 147$
1 147
1.5 326
2 423
3 962
4 1,573
6 2,829
8 3,252
2/3/2011 10
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Meter Demand Ratio (Potential demand for water based on size of meter)
Meter
Size in
Inches
Area of
Meter -
Square
Inches
Meter Ratio
using a base
of 0.75 inch
0.75 0.44 1.00
1.00 0.79 1.78
1.50 1.77 4.00
2.00 3.14 7.11
3.00 7.07 16.00
3.00 7.07 16.00
4.00 12.56 28.44
6.00 28.26 64.00
8.00 50.24 113.78
10.00 78.50 177.78
The meter ratio is a calculated value based on the potential volume that can pass through the
meter. This value determines the maximum potential demand a customer can create on the
water system. The formula is calculated as follows:
(Radius of meter squared) X value of Pi
where: Meter Size/2 = Radius of meter and Pi = 3.14
2/3/2011 11
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Fire Protection Costs are costs associated with installing facilities to meet expected peak
demands of fire protection services. Operating and capital costs for hydrants were allocated
directly to fire protection classifications. Certain parts of the water system are required to be
oversized to help ensure adequate capacity exists to fight fires. Water towers are specifically
oversized to meet the fire flow requirements of the community. The portion of towers allocated
directly to fire protection is 20.6% of water tower costs and is based on the calculation listed
below.
Table Eight – Fire Hydrants Water Requirements
GPM
Hour
Requirement
Total
Requirement
in MGD
Fire Flow Requirement 6,000 6.00 2.16
Reservoir Capacity 10.50
Percent of Total 20.6%
GPM – Gallons per minute requirement
2/3/2011 12
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
COST OF SERVICE COMPONENTS
The table below identifies cost of service rates and identifies the monthly charge and
consumption charge for each meter size and each customer class.
Table Nine – Comparison of Current Charges with Cost of Service Charges
Customer Class Meter Size
Monthly
Meter
Charges
CCU
Charges
Average
COS Rate
Monthly
Meter
Charges
Current
Rate First
Block
Current
Rate
Second
Block
Average
Current Rate
W-1 Residential 3/4 13.94$ 4.52$ 5.61$ 5.00$ 3.949$ 5.624$ 5.11
W-1 1 18.54 4.52 5.50 6.50 3.949 5.624 5.35
W-1 1.5 39.27 4.52 5.68 12.27 3.949 5.624 5.64
W-1 2 61.77 4.52 5.77 19.37 3.949 5.624 5.78
W-4 Commercial 3/4 13.94 4.16 4.99 5.00 4.946 5.23
W-4 1 18.54 4.16 4.80 6.50 4.946 5.15
W-4 1.5 39.27 4.16 4.80 12.27 4.946 5.13
W-4 2 61.77 4.16 4.71 19.37 4.946 5.11
W-4 3 137.16 4.16 4.52 77.65 4.946 5.12
W-4 4 236.62 4.16 4.78 130.60 4.946 5.26
W-4 6 500.00 4.16 4.95 260.43 4.946 5.34
W-4 8 812.02 4.16 4.61 383.67 4.946 5.14
W-7 Irrigation 3/4 13.94 5.10 5.51 5.00 4.946 5.19
W-7 1 18.54 5.10 5.27 6.50 4.946 5.10
W-7 1.5 39.27 5.10 5.10 12.27 4.946 5.03
W-7 2 61.77 5.10 5.19 19.37 4.946 5.06
W-7 3 137.16 5.10 4.95 77.65 4.946 5.01
W-7 4 236.62 5.10 5.08 130.60 4.946 5.08
W-7 6 500.00 5.10 4.89 260.43 4.946 4.98
W-7 8 812.02 5.10 4.98 383.67 4.946 5.01
Current ChargesCost of Service Charges
2/3/2011 13
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
This section outlines the procedures used to develop the cost of service for CPAU’s Water Utility
and related significant assumptions.
REVENUE FORECAST
Sales revenues and rate adjustments were provided by CPAU. The table below projects
revenues from FY 2011 – FY 2015.
Table Ten – Projected Revenues (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
RATE ADJUSTMENT 0.0% 8.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
REVENUES
SALES REVENUES 28,666$ 31,336$ 34,179$ 37,291$ 40,687$
FORECASTED OPERATING EXPENSES FOR FY 2011
Forecasted expenses were provided by CPAU and are listed in the table below:
Table Eleven – Palo Alto Projected FY 2011 Expenses (thousands)
Category Amount
Supply 12,808$
Distribution 10,549
Support Services and Admin 1,612
Debt Service 2,373
Rent and Transfers Out 2,331
Rate Stabilization (985)
Other Revenues and Expense (23)
Totals 28,666$
CUSTOMER USAGE INFORMATION
Usage patterns for customer classes were based on monthly number of customers and
monthly volumetric usages listed on table seven.
Utility Financial Solutions
185 Sun Meadow Ct.
Holland, MI 49424
Phone: 616-393-9722
Fax: 616-393-9721
ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
The accompanying forecasted statements of revenues and expenses of the City of Palo Alto Water
Department were provided by CPAU and compiled for the year ending June 30, 2011 through June
30, 2015. CPAU’s projection was restated in accordance with guidelines established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and reflected in this report.
The purpose of this report is to assist management in determining the cost to service each customer
class. This report should not be used for any other purpose.
A compilation is limited to presenting, in the form of a forecast; information represented by
management and does not include evaluation of support for any assumptions used in projecting
revenue requirements. We have not audited the forecast and, accordingly, do not express an opinion
or any other form of assurance on the statements or assumptions accompanying this report.
Differences between forecasted and actual results will occur since some assumptions may not
materialize and events and circumstances may occur that were not anticipated, some of these
variations may be material. Utility Financial Solutions has no responsibility to update this report after
the date of this report.
This report is intended for information and use by the City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department for the
purposes stated above. This report is not intended to be used by anyone except the specified
parties.
UTILITY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
Mark Beauchamp, CPA, CMA, MBA
Holland, MI
January 11, 2011
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Meeting of February 2, 2011
ITEM 1: ACTION: Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long -Term Financial Projections
Senior Resource Planner Ipek Connolly provided a presentation on the water utility’s five-year
financial projections and proposed rate adjustments for FY 2012. Connolly noted that over the five-
year planning period, the cost of water purchases is expected to increase from $10.8 million in FY
2011 to $21.5 million in FY 2016. Regarding the rate adjustments, staff proposed to make the
cost-of-service analysis (COSA) adjustments between customer classes and between fixed and
volumetric charges in one year, along with a 12.5% ($3.5Million) increase in overall sales revenue.
This translates to a 17.4% increase in residential sales revenue and an 8% increase in business
sales revenue since the COSA realignment between customer classes is a 4% increase in
residential rates and a 10% reduction in commercial rates, and a 14% increase in commercial
irrigation rates. The adjustment to the fixed charge component would increase the revenue
collected from fixed charges from 5% to 15% of total sales revenue. The staff proposal would also
add a tier to residential and commercial rates. The financial projections illustrated the impact of the
revised (higher) SFPUC supply rate increases, lower water demand projections, and additional
capital improvement projects. Connolly also presented a couple of alternative scenarios suggested
by UAC members. One alternative was to raise rates sooner to avoid more increase later and
avoid going below the minimum reserve guideline. Another alternative was to try and achieve
stable rate increases (i.e., the same percentage over the 5 year planning horizon).
Commissioner Eglash asked for an explanation of how revenue from commercial customers was
increasing when they were getting a 10% decrease. Director Fong and Connolly explained that the
10% decrease was for the cost of service realignment between customer classes. With the
proposed FY 2012 increase of 12.5% in overall revenue requirements and the COSA increase of
14% for irrigation accounts the net increase to the commercial customers overall was 8%.
Commissioner Melton stated that he thought it was a well thought out proposal but expressed his
concern about dropping below minimum reserve guidelines for two years. He acknowledged that it
would take a large increase in FY 2012 to stay above the minimum guidelines in future years, but
requested that it be made clear to the Council of that possible outcome.
Chair Waldfogel and Commissioner Berry discussed alternatives to reduce the impact of the CIP
increase. Chair Waldfogel suggested stretching the CIP over three years, and Commissioner Berry
asked if the two new projects could be financed instead of paid for out of current ratepayer
revenues. Director Fong replied that she would not recommend delaying the projects as they were
safety related, and bond financing was not the typical way of financing such projects, but that it is
something that could be considered.
Commissioner Keller asked if the demand reduction was mainly from the business sector and
economy driven. She also observed that the reserve calculations were very sensitive to demand
projections, so the Commission should not get too focused on the reserve projections for future
years. Connolly replied that the demand reductions were partly driven by the economy, but also by
the weather and conservation actions.
Commissioner Cook asked how the tiers were determined, and if the tiers were effective in
encouraging conservation. Connolly explained that tier points had been selected based on the
percentage of customers that would fall into them for winter and summer usage. For example, tier
one was set based on winter usage and was designed so that 50% of customers would not exceed
tier one based on their winter usage. Connolly also explained that price response is low but there is
some, and the response is higher for low income customers and irrigation use.
Chair Waldfogel indicated that the UAC received a letter from Canopy and read the questions in
the letter:
1. Do we know what impact these rate changes might have on the landscape and health
of trees in particular?
2. Was Planning Arborist Dave Dockter consulted on this matter?
3. Is demand for water usually elastic to price? Does this elasticity vary tier to tier?
4. If the rate change is accompanied by additional encouragements to conserve water in
the landscape (such as the removal of irrigated lawns), could instructions be given
regarding the need to provide alternate irrigation for trees that are currently irrigated
indirectly through the watering of lawns?
Commissioner Keller recognized that the COSA resulted in a 4% residential increase, but she
asked if the cost could be split differently so that low usage customers could still have the ability to
lower their bills. She was concerned that the drop in volumetric rates for residential tiers one and
two did not give a conservation signal and was a confusing message to customers. Director Fong
stated that staff’s proposal was to increase the fixed charge to the COSA recommendation
especially since there is strong sentiment among the Council to avoid ramifications to the Water
Fund when usage drops based on the experience of the Refuse Fund. However when fixed rates
increase, volumetric rates must decrease to maintain the same revenue.
Commissioner Eglash summarized the “big picture”; water rates are rising dramatically, water is a
finite resource, and the City needs a rate structure to encourage conservation and has an
obligation to send correct price signals. There are significant avoided costs from conserving water.
He indicated that we have a responsibility to bring in the third usage tier to incent efficient use. He
recognized there was some concern about trees but he did not think most trees relied solely on
irrigation because of the relatively high water table in Palo Alto. Although he didn’t think trees
would be impacted, he indicated that if they were we would need to find a solution to that problem.
He expressed a preference for keeping commercial rates flat rather than having some commercial
customers having bill reductions and suggested applying Commissioner Keller’s suggestion to
commercial rates in not having their volumetric charges reduced.
Commissioner Foster expressed his appreciation for staff’s report and asked for clarification on
COSA legal requirements. He asked if the City was under a legal obligation to follow COSA, if
there was any arbitrariness to COSA studies, and if there was any obligation to move to the COSA
fixed charge recommendation. Staff replied that yes, regulations (Proposition 218) required that
rates be based on cost of service and the COSA study used industry standard cost causation
models for assigning cost of service. The fixed cost was a rate design issue, but that the current
low fixed costs were not collecting the full cost of service from low usage customers.
Commissioner Foster recognized that the proposed rate increases are painful and he would rather
the COSA be phased in more gradually so as to avoid the rate increase differential between low
usage residential customers and commercial customers. He would like to see all customers share
some of the required increase. He also would like a more gradual move to the fixed cost increase
(he would prefer no fixed costs). He also advised that staff communicate clearly the projected rate
increase over the next few years.
Commissioner Melton asked why staff proposed to move to full COSA alignment by customer
classes in one year although both the UAC and the Finance Committee previously indicated a
preference to move to the class alignment over more than one year. Staff indicated that since the
Water Fund’s reserves are currently healthy and, therefore, it was possible to somewhat reduce
the requested revenue increase for FY 2012 and include the COSA alignment in one year.
Additionally, staff indicated its preliminary assessment that it would recommend no increase to gas
or electric rates, so the total bill impact from the one-year COSA alignment for water rates was
doable.
Chair Waldfogel noted that the commission has several choices, including: 1) approve staff’s
proposal now; 2) approve the proposal with tweaks now; 3) appoint a subcommittee to work with
staff to develop new proposals; or 4) ask staff to return with a new proposal based on the
commission’s input. Commissioner Eglash opposed delaying action and noted that the
Commission needs to grapple with the issues now.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton moved to recommend staff’s proposal with the change that staff make the
adjustments necessary so that no customer would get a bill decrease. Commissioner Foster
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Eglash offered a friendly amendment regarding lower usage customers: that the
volumetric rates for tiers 1 and 2 not be reduced from current levels and the fixed charge be
lowered to account for the higher volumetric charges, the tier 3 residential rate would stay at the
level proposed by staff. Commissioner Melton accepted the amendment offered by Commissioner
Eglash, but stated he would not accept elimination of the residential 3rd tier.
Chair Waldfogel offered an amendment to have a 14% increase in the revenue requirement for FY
2012 to have stable rate increases planned over the 5 year projection. Commissioner Berry
seconded the motion, but then withdrew his second when he understood the net impact on
residential customers of the revenue requirement increase and the COSA adjustment. Chair
Waldfogel offered an amendment to remove the residential tier 3, but there was no second.
Commissioners Eglash and Keller proposed modifying the first amendment so that residential tiers
1 and 2 rates would increase slightly instead of remaining at current levels. Commissioner Melton
accepted the revised amendment and reiterated his earlier request that the Council be well
apprised of the fact that the five-year financial projections show the reserves going below the
minimum guidelines for two years.
The final restated amended motion was: to recommend Council approve amendments to the water
rates such that: a) overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund increase by
12.5%, or $3.5 million, in Fiscal Year 2012; b) the rate adjustment proposal by staff be modified so
that no customer’s bill would be decreased. These modifications will require that the volumetric
rates for residential customers for usage in tiers 1 and 2 and for commercial customers be
increased and the fixed charges be reduced; and c) the Council be made aware that the UAC is
aware that the five-year financial projections show that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization
Reserve falls below the minimum guideline level for two years.
The motion passed (5-2) with Chair Waldfogel and Commissioner Berry opposed. Chair Waldfogel
indicated that his opposition was due to the fact that the customers most affected by the proposal
are those with large landscaped areas. Commissioner Berry indicated that he couldn’t support the
motion since he couldn’t see that actual proposed rates that would result from the proposed
modifications.
Excerpts from Finance Committee Regular Meeting March 1, 2011
2. Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long Term Financial Projections.
Senior Resource Planner, Ipek Connolly reviewed her presentation. Staff
requested that the Finance Committee recommend adoption of the changes to
four Water Utility Rate Schedules for residential, commercial, fire hydrant, and
irrigation water services. If these changes were approved by the Council, the
rate changes would increase overall revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent. There would be a 17 percent increase in residential revenues as a
result of the proposal. Different customer groups were identified because cost
drivers were different. The Cost of Service Study recommendations had been
incorporated. She reviewed a table summarizing how the proposal would affect
the customer’s monthly utility bill. For example, a residential customer that
used 14 CCF would see a $10 increase in their monthly bill. For wastewater, to
be discussed later, there would be a $3 increase. No adjustments were
expected for the electric and gas funds. With all rate changes, the total impact
would be $14 for an average customer. She discussed the background to the
changes. The proposal was brought before both the Finance Committee and
the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). There was general agreement on the
objectives presented. One member from each group questioned the tiered
structure. The UAC approved the proposal 5-2 with some recommended
changes. She spoke regarding the drivers for the proposed changes. The
water supply cost was a main factor. There were on-going system
improvements that factored into the proposal. She stated the water demand
levels, across the region, were dropping. She reviewed charts demonstrating
water costs and demands. The sudden drop in demand was a problem as most
of the costs were fixed. She offered a high level view of the next five years
projections. With existing rate levels, and proposed rate increases, they would
not cover their costs each year. The reserves were healthy, and therefore they
were proposing only a moderate increase in an effort to maintain the objective
of stabile prices. There will be a need in the future for increased revenues. The
City Council approved minimum and maximum levels for the stabilization fund,
and they are within those parameters. Staff had proposed full implementation
of the Cost of Service Study levels for both customer class levels and fixed
service charge levels. The UAC agreed with the proposal, but recommended
Staff redesign the volumetric versus fixed rate component so there would be an
increase in Residential Tier 1 and Tier 2. The UAC wanted to provide a price
structure that rewarded customers that conserved water. Another
recommendation was that there should not be a bill reduction for any
customers. The California Urban Water Conservation Guidelines would be met.
The volumetric charges had a number of proposed changes, including an
additional third tier. The pricing of the tiers would be higher for higher users.
The proposal included two tiers for commercial users. Irrigation rates would
increase to $6.27. Fire hydrant rates would change to $7.27, consistent with
the Cost of Service Study requirement. A residential small customer’s monthly
bill would increase by approximately $3.41. For a medium customer, the bill
1
would increase by approximately $10 per month. Large customers would see a
22 percent increase. Commercial customers’ biggest impact would be seen in
irrigation. If the Finance Committee recommended a rate proposal to be
approved by the Council, letters would be sent to customers and a budget
review would be held in May. There would be a public hearing in June. If more
than 50 percent of the customers sent written protests the Council may not
adopt the proposed rates.
Council Member Shepherd asked about the consistent operational costs.
Ms. Connolly said Staff made a conservative assumption of one percent annual
growth, which may be adjusted based on labor negotiations. The amount
represented in the presentation included salaries, benefits, and all operational
expenses. The Consumer Price Index for the current year was one and a half
percent. It was her belief this would likely rise after the recession. Staff
attempted to maintain a low-level of cost.
Utilities Director, Valerie Fong said what was not spent was placed into
reserves.
City Manager, James Keene said Staff would try to correlate operational costs
with factors contained within the City’s Long Range Financial Forecast.
Council Member Shepherd inquired on the non-bond revenue. She felt the 17
percent in 2013 would not be needed until 2015.
Ms. Connolly said 17 percent was needed because of the prior four years.
Council Member Shepherd stated in W-RSR Guidelines lowered in June 2009
from 50 percent and 20 percent to 30 percent and 15 percent of sales revenues
for maximum and minimum reserve levels, respectively.
Ms. Connolly presented a graph displaying the short-term risk assessment.
Staff performed a short-term risk assessment annually. Staff made an
adjustment recommendation to Council to lower minimums.
Ms. Fong said Staff’s recommendation aligned the long term minimum with the
short term risk assessment.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the redlined minimum indicated how
Staff expected the risk reserves to operate in managing rate increases.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Council Member Shepherd stated the City would dip down to $2 million and
spike up with aggressive increases. She stated 2012 through 2014 could be
2
problematic.
Ms. Fong said Staff was providing a forecast using current information. She
stated the biggest unknown was the water utility demand.
Council Member Shepherd stated a low projection was used on water utility use
and consumption. She stated Staff expected a large drawdown on reserves.
Ms. Fong agreed.
Ms. Connolly said Staff felt comfortable moving forward with the information
available. If conditions worsen, Staff would return with this information next
year.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Finance Committee would be
recommending 12.5 percent.
Ms. Connolly confirmed the recommendation of 12.5 percent.
Council Member Yeh inquired on the reserve levels dipping below the range.
He inquired whether the City was at risk of having its credit rating downgraded.
Ms. Fong said the City initially pledged all of its reserves to support the water
bond.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez said the graph indicated the City
would return above the range. The funds were monitored on a regular basis.
Ms. Connolly said that rating agencies looked at how frequently the City
adjusted rates. Staff reviewed rates annually and adjustments were made
accordingly.
Ms. Fong said rating agencies favored Council approved Staff adjustment
recommendations.
Mr. Keene said rating agencies agreed with this type of multi-year forecasting
and adjustment. Rating agencies favored transparency.
Mr. Perez said Staff was finalizing interviews for the hiring of financial advisors.
Council Member Yeh asked if Staff would be returning to the Finance Committee
by June 2011 with additional rate adjustment recommendations.
Ms. Connolly said yes.
Council Member Yeh said water demand went down 14 percent between 2008
and 2010. He inquired whether usage would remain flat, or if there would be a
3
further decrease due to water efficiency initiatives.
Ms. Fong said Staff would continue with water efficiency initiatives. She said it
would depend on business growth in Palo Alto.
Senior Resource Planner, Debra Lloyd-Zannetti stated water usage was
expected to trend down.
Council Member Yeh inquired whether fixed charges would trend upward.
Ms. Connolly said it was desirable to have a higher percentage of revenues
through fixed charges, as it provided revenue stability. On the other hand, the
more this was done the fewer customers would conserve. Staff’s plan was to
keep service charges at the levels indicated in the Cost of Service Study.
Council Member Schmid spoke on the importance of understanding the basis of
the reallocation process for residents. He inquired whether the peak-to-
average ratio, contained in the Cost of Service Study, was a driving force.
Ms. Connolly said yes. She stated that information was incorporated in the
Staff Report.
Council Member Schmid said the model assumed that if the rate varied over
time the system would be required to create an extra capacity. Thus, the share
of the basic cost would rise to manage the extra capacity.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct. Costs were allocated by the peak to
average ratio. In order to meet short-period demands, Staff was required to
have an adequate sizing mechanism and charge accordingly.
Council Member Schmid disagreed with the customer classes and peak to
average ratio. He felt it sounded perverse that if a customer, who saved water
in the summer, would end up paying more.
Ms. Connolly said one factor was how much irrigation load a customer imposed
on the system in the summer. There was a base load used in the household
throughout the year.
Council Member Schmid said the vast majority of residential users had a ¾ inch
pipe.
Ms. Connolly said it was infrastructure costs that were looked at, and not the
size of the pipe traveling to the customer.
Council Member Schmid said Staff was penalizing customers that conserved
4
during certain seasons.
Ms. Connolly said there were separate meters that were dedicated to outdoor
and indoor irrigation.
Council Member Schmid said commercial customers who used large amounts of
water for irrigation had the highest peak to average ratio and should pay more.
Ms. Connolly said Attachment G showed that proposed irrigation rates were
based on updated results from the 2010 billing statistics. The method proposed
was used by the industry.
Council Member Schmid felt residents would pay a larger portion with the
proposed rate system.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said residents who filled their water pipes constantly would
pay higher utility bill.
Council Member Schmid said this customer class would bear a larger share of
the total cost.
Ms. Connolly said the peak to average ratio appeared to be rising because the
Finance Committee was looking at it in terms of lower winter usage.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the $5 million annually was due to
the water tanks on the Foothills.
Ms. Connolly said water supply costs were rising.
Council Member Schmid said the five-year fiscal plan projected a water supply
increase of $2 million, and a CIP non-bonded increase of $5 million. This figure
would potentially stay flat for two additional years creating $10 million in CIP
spending.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct. Staff considered this a one-time increase
and did not propose to increase revenues.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Cost of Service Study should
reflect the utility users that would benefit.
Ms. Fong said Council Member Schmid was speaking in regards to residents in
the Foothills. The benefit was mainly on fire suppression in the Foothills and
the Open Space area.
Council Member Schmid felt there were heavy water users west of the Foothills
as Council had approved an increase in square footage in this area.
5
Ms. Fong said these residences would be in the higher tier.
Council Member Schmid said this would be part of the CIP discussion in 2013.
Council Member Schmid inquired why the fixed cost was not higher in the Cost
of Service Study.
Ms. Fong said Staff was operating under a recommendation from the Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC) to balance costs between commercial uses and low
residential utility users.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the UAC wanted to ensure consistency in the City’s
message on water conservation.
Council Member Schmid said Staff felt a known fixed charge was good for the
system. He inquired why the fixed charge was not higher, with a zero volume
charge for the first five cubic feet of water.
UAC Vice Chair, Jon Foster spoke on his support for Staff’s proposal. He said
volumetric charges were important to send a rate signal to utility users.
Chair Scharff inquired whether the rate would rise 12.5 percent, plus four
percent.
Ms. Fong said that was correct for residential customers. She said it would rise
eight percent for businesses customers.
Chair Scharff said residential users would see a 16.5 percent increase. Due to
water conservation, Staff under-budgeted by ten percent or $3.1 million.
Ms. Connolly said under-budgeting, due to conservation, was only one driver to
the loss. She said weather conditions and the economic slowdown were also
drivers.
Chair Scharff said there was a ten percent reduction in water use. The
reduction in water usage directly related to the proposed 12.5 percent rate
increase. The process was similar to the Refuse Fund in that zero waste
equaled zero dollars. He inquired whether a sensitivity analysis had been
performed.
Ms. Connolly said the demand scenarios were the sensitivity analysis. The
finding was a one percent reduction annually.
Chair Scharff inquired whether the system would crash if there was a ten
percent reduction, as seen as in past years.
6
Ms. Connolly said yes.
Chair Scharff said using less water translated into less revenue for the City, as
seen in the Refuse Fund.
Ms. Fong said this situation was why Staff recommended a fixed charge, and
reported to the Finance Committee annually.
Chair Scharff said returning to the Finance Committee may result in further rate
increases.
Ms. Fong said this was a possibility.
Chair Scharff said the conundrum was that higher rate increases would drive
customers to use less water. He felt Staff was subsidizing customers with fixed
rates. He inquired on cost-cutting measures.
Ms. Connolly said most costs were fixed in the Water Fund, and a demand
reduction translated into a similar percent rate increase. The City used ten
percent less water, so the bill dropped by ten percent. With a fixed cost, Staff
was achieving the same bill with a lower use of water.
Chair Scharff said residents were getting charged more for water and the rates
were increasing.
Ms. Fong said if less water was used the customer would not pay for those units
of water.
Chair Scharff said that was a volumetric charge. The Staff Report stated most
charges were fixed costs.
Ms. Fong said the City only paid for what it used annually.
Chair Scharff inquired on the percentage of fixed costs. He said 70/30 percent
was his guess.
Ms. Fong said it was approximately 50 percent water and 50 percent
distribution.
Ms. Connolly said next year whatever was not recovered would be incorporated
into the following year’s rates. She disagreed with the statement that the City
was paying more for water utilities. It was the Council’s direction to use less
resources.
Chair Scharff agreed with the use of fewer resources. He spoke on his concern
for dropping below zero and not looking into cost-cutting.
7
Ms. Fong said Staff was conscious about ensuring there were no additional
costs. It was her belief there were no programs that could be cut in utility
services.
Chair Scharff inquired whether there were ways to bring fixed costs down to
ensure that each resident received a benefit using less water over time. He
said goals and the rate structures were not aligned.
Ms. Fong said goals and the rate structure were a balancing act.
Mr. Keene said the City had other monopoly services, such as police and fire
services. There were requirements and impacts to cutting services. Staff was
conducting an organizational review in the Utilities Department.
Chair Scharff inquired on any research performed on the third tier.
Ms. Connolly said there was a general assumption of a one percent reduction
for every ten percent rate increase built into the projection.
Chair Scharff inquired whether that had held true historically.
Ms. Connolly said there had not been studies done specifically in Palo Alto.
Ms. Fong said there were aggressive conservation programs which created a
decline in water demand.
Ms. Connolly said historically water demand had gone down and rates had gone
up. The largest driver in demand had been in the change of building and
plumbing codes.
Mr. Keene said Chair Scharff’s concern was with the conservation of water
leading to higher utility rates.
Chair Scharff stated the Cost of Service Study suggested a 200 percent
increase. He inquired whether a law would be violated if this increase was not
enacted.
Ms. Fong said that Proposition 218 compliance was an issue Staff had consulted
with City Attorney’s office about. There would not be a violation of Proposition
218,
Chair Scharff inquired whether the Finance Committee should move forward
with a larger fixed charge.
Ms. Fong said the original recommendation would have created a larger bill
impact. Staff was comfortable with what the UAC recommended and felt it was
8
a rational approach to develop rates for customers.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council the adoption of
changes to the four water utility rate schedules for residential, commercial, fire
hydrant, and irrigation water service, W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, per Staff
recommendations.
Council Member Yeh said the addition of the third tier and volumetric charges
sent an effective price signal to customers in terms of water conservation. He
spoke on Staff’s recommendation to phase in fixed charges.
Council Member Schmid spoke on his skepticism for the extra capacity model
and its effectiveness. He suggested a higher fixed cost model, with zero
volume for the first 600 cubic feet, and a five category ladder system with
moderate categories to provide a series of incentives.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by
Council Member XXX, to establish a higher fixed-cost model with zero volume
for the first 600 cubic feet and a five category ladder system.
Council Member Yeh said that would be a separate analysis required by Staff.
The UAC had discussed adding an additional fourth tier.
Council Member Schmid said his recommendation could not return after the
Motion.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Shepherd said Council Member Yeh’s comments were to direct
Staff for next year. Next year would bring larger structural changes.
Council Member Yeh felt specifying five tiers would be too specific.
Chair Scharff inquired on the volumetric fixed charge amount that would be
established in the next two years.
Ms. Fong said the charge would be a 200 percent increase.
Ms. Connolly said the increase would go from $5 to $7.50 to $15.00.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member XXX to direct Staff to increase the service charge to $15 within two
years.
9
Ms. Fong felt the Finance Committee may want to postpone this
recommendation until the bill impacts were confirmed. There may be other
rate increases on City services.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Chair Scharff said Staff wanted to implement this service charge within the next
two or three years.
Ms. Fong said that was correct. Staff had not analyzed this impact with other
increases in City services.
Chair Scharff recommended that the City move toward a $15 service charge.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on the City’s labor contract and its effect on
operational costs.
Council Member Yeh inquired on the timing of Staff’s return on the fixed cost
analysis.
Ms. Fong said conducting a fixed cost analysis, on a two-year timeframe, would
be challenging because Staff did not know what was occurring with other utility
rates. After May 2011, Staff would have more information to work with.
Mr. Keene recommended an additional Motion for Staff to return with an
analysis regarding an accelerated fixed charge rate increase.
Mr. Perez recommended that the rate impact be up to $15 in the Motion.
Mr. Keene said rushing a rate increase to Council precluded them from holding
a discussion. If the rate was set at the higher level the Council would have the
authority to reduce it.
Ms. Connolly inquired whether Mr. Keene was discussing next year’s rate
increase.
Mr. Keene stated the rate increase would take effect on July 1, 2011.
Ms. Fong clarified that the Finance Committee wanted to treat all customer
classes the same.
Ms. Connolly said Ms. Fong’s clarification went back to the proposal prior to
UAC’s recommendation. Some customers would be receiving a reduction in
services, and some customers would see an increase in water utility services.
She requested clarification on the change that the Finance Committee would
like to see.
10
Council Member Yeh inquired when Staff would return with an analysis on the
impact on customers’ bills.
Ms. Fong said an analysis would likely return in January 2012.
Mr. Keene said the Finance Committee sought an assessment of the proposed
changes. He felt a post budget adaption analysis could be done on the relative
impact that kept the existing factors the same without redoing the CIP.
Ms. Connolly stated Staff could provide this information.
Mr. Keene said the Finance Committee could chose to hold another session.
Staff could use the forecast to show the bill impact on distributing fixed costs
versus volumetric costs.
Ms. Fong said Staff could return with this information.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether this action was tied into the Motion.
Mr. Keene said this analysis would be brought to Finance Committee after the
rates were set for Fiscal Year 2012.
Council Member Schmid said he was convinced that a rate increase was needed
in 2012. It was important to move forward but there were outstanding issues,
including researching alternatives to the extra capacity model.
Ms. Fong said Staff could rerun the Cost of Service Study upon request.
Council Member Schmid said an outstanding question was how this rate change
would effect consumption. He said this would effect the total revenue brought
into the City.
Ms. Fong said Staff did not know which City programs, or if the economy, would
effect water consumption.
Ms. Connolly said financial projections were performed with low-demand and
high-demand scenarios. Staff could present this information upon request.
Council Member Shepherd said there would be many more Cost of Service
studies moving forward, and the Council would be revising these next year.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2, Schmid, Scharff no
Council Member Schmid said next steps were needed to deal with the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC). He said scheduling a new meeting or formulating
an alternative was needed to find a resolution.
11
Chair Scharff inquired on the timeline for this item returning to the Council.
Ms. Connolly said the public notice needed to be completed by April 15, 2011.
Chair Scharff inquired on the subject matter for future Finance Committee
meetings.
Mr. Perez said items scheduled on March 15, 2011 included the Mid-Year
Budget Report and the Stanford Development Agreement.
Ms. Fong said the Amendment to the Motion would be based on the full Cost of
Service Study for the 200 percent fixed charge.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the former Motion contained a third
tier.
Ms. Fong said the former Motion contained a third tier.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to request
Staff return to the Finance Committee with a proposal that did not include a tier
three.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2, Yeh, Shepherd no
Mr. Keene inquired whether it was best to return to the Finance Committee for
discussion, or return to the Council with alternatives.
Chair Scharff stated the Motion’s intent was for the Staff Report to return to the
Finance Committee.
Council Member Shepherd said she supported the Staff Report returning
directly to the Council.
Mr. Perez said Staff may need to run the documents without any indication of a
rate to stay with the current timeline.
Council Member Shepherd said if the Staff Report returned straight to the
Council, the Finance Committee would not need to discuss this item on March
15, 2011.
Council Member Schmid said the Staff Report could return on the March 14,
2011 Council agenda.
Mr. Keene inquired whether the Finance Committee would be able to select a
recommendation for the Council to consider if alternatives were brought back to
the Finance Committee on March 15, 2010.
12
Chair Scharff said he believed they could.
Mr. Keene said, as an alternative, recommendations could be taken straight to
Council.
Chair Scharff believed there would be no timing issue if the recommendation
returned to the Finance Committee prior to Council.
Ms. Fong said if there was a split vote made by the Finance Committee, Staff
would face two production issues.
Council Member Shepherd said the Motion, as it stood, moved for the
recommendation to return straight to Council.
Mr. Keene said the March 14 Council meeting was full.
Ms. Fong said Staff had PowerPoint slides on water rates available from the UAC
meeting for the Finance Committee to view.
Chair Scharff said the issue on the table was volumetric versus non-volumetric
percentage charge. He said Council Member Yeh recommended moving the
volumetric charge up, and removing the fixed concept.
Council Member Shepherd said the matrix would shift and analysis would need
to be processed.
Ms. Connolly presented PowerPoint slides depicting the current and proposed
fixed charges, and current volumetric rates, shown on two tiers. She spoke on
UAC and Staff recommendations as proposed. She spoke on the proposal,
recommended by the UAC for an increase to Tier 1, Tier 2, and to have a fixed
charge to Tier 3. The percentage increase would be a 200 percent increase on
the fixed cost. The pre-UAC recommendation contained fixed charges, moving
to wholesale levels, where small customers would see a 28 percent increase,
medium customers 11 percent, and large customers 16 percent increase in
monthly bills. It showed a decrease on commercial customers. Meter charges
affected all customer classes and resulted in revenue collection on the
commercial sector. Staff was bound by the Cost of Service Study, and was
required to lower the volumetric charges in this instance. This scenario resulted
in a bill increase for commercial customers. The UAC recommended not using
this scenario.
Council Member Schmid inquired why Staff used the same fixed cost charge.
Ms. Connolly said it was based on Cost to Service Study revenue requirements.
13
Ms. Fong said Staff recommended that phasing be done similarly across the
board.
Ms. Connolly said customer service, at these charges, were the same for all
customer classes.
Council Member Schmid felt commercial and small customer meters were not
the same.
Ms. Connolly said commercial customers had larger meters and had a larger
customer charge. Customer charges were based on meter size.
Council Member Schmid disagreed with pushing additional costs onto residential
customers. He inquired why Staff could not collect 100 percent of fixed charges
for residential customers and 20 percent fixed charges for commercial
customers, and collect the balance for the volumetric from the commercial
customers.
Ms. Connolly stated there would be a violation of the Cost of Service Study.
Council Member Schmid said Staff remarked that they must divide commercial
and residential customers. They were therefore not treated identically.
Ms. Connolly said there were different cost types. Revenues collected through
the service charges did not vary by customer class, but varied by size of
customer.
Ms. Fong said the same principles were applied at the same levels. The
principles were consistently applied.
Council Member Shepherd said this was a large spike for residential customers
and reduction for commercial customers, except that irrigation would be
brought forward for commercial customers with large landscapes.
Mr. Keene said small and large customers had larger spike increases under
Staff’s scenario, than under the UAC scenario.
Chair Scharff confirmed that the Finance Committee had a Motion to return
both scenarios to the Council.
Ms. Fong said that was correct.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh to have a 100
percent increase in fixed charges for residential customers with the rate system
designed around this increase, and for the Finance Committee to accept the rest
of the increases, per Staff’s recommendations.
14
Mr. Fong inquired whether that would include the three tiers.
Chair Scharff said yes.
Council Member Yeh stated the Motion would result in a reduction for
commercial customers. He inquired whether that could be penciled out. He
was open to the decision for this to go directly to the full Council.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the scenario would recover the
revenue in order to support the service.
Ms. Fong said Staff would construct the proposal so that it covered the service’s
expenses.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the fixed charge would increase, and there would be a
reduction in the volumetric from what was proposed this evening. But it would
be less of a reduction than the alternative presented in the PowerPoint. The
Motion would not achieve the UAC’s objectives.
Ms. Connolly said the volumetric rates would need to be decreased to create a
signal for water conservation.
Ms. Fong inquired whether the Finance Committee requested to treat residential
and commercial customers differently.
Chair Scharff said the customers could be treated equally.
Ms. Fong said every customer would get 100 percent of the fixed charge
increase, and Staff would figure out the volumetric charge to obtain the correct
revenue for the individual customer classes. She indicated the Motion would
include three tiers.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the Motion would approve 50 percent of the fixed
charge increases that were suggested, which would result in a 100 percent
increase in current fixed charges.
Chair Scharff felt this Motion would achieve the two-year timeline that Staff
proposed and allow flexibility. He felt it was a good compromise between the
UAC and the Staff proposals.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid, seconded by Council
Member XXX moved that the first tier be relatively low so the net impact on low-
water users was minimal.
15
16
Council Member Yeh inquired whether the Amendment would create inequality
between the steps in the residential tiers.
Council Member Schmid said the steps would not be as high because more would
be covered in fixed costs.
Ms. Connolly said that would take away incentives to conserve on the small
customers by turning their bill into a primarily fixed charge bill.
Council Member Shepherd said she would not be supporting the Amendment.
She appreciated the incentives in place to conserve water resources. She
inquired whether a Cost of Service Study would be performed next year.
Ms. Fong said the current Cost of Service Study would be updated next year.
Council Member Yeh said the Motion would incentivize conservation efforts, but
not to the extent of the UAC proposal. He did not recommend returning to the
Council with no recommendation.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
Mr. Perez said the recommendation to Council would return as part of the
Budget process in June 2011.
Council Member Yeh said, if the recommendation passed this evening, the
Proposition 218 notice would proceed with 50 percent of the increase of the
fixed charge.
Council Member Schmid felt strongly that a rate increase was needed.
MOTION PASSED 3-1, Shepherd no
J
• Robert K. Stitt ...•
919A.marilloAvenue, Pal~!Alto, CA 943~rYOF PAL .
. . Phone: 650493-5900, FAX: 650493-0636 .. .ITy CLERK~~V;' CA
. E-Mail rks3ataad@yahoo.com II H . feE
.... ~y ... S PH 2: OJ
May 2,2011
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto; CA 94301
RE:
Gentlemen,
Objection to Proposed Utility Rate Increases
I am writing this letter to object to the increase in the utility rates .. This increase
would adversely affect most, those with the lowest earnings and the retired and
elderly.
Very truly yours,
~--L~a?
Robert K. Stitt
Pau Acct. #: 132153-42677
I I • J _ ,,,,,, . I J I I
I
I
I • CITY Of PALO . CITY t"l. AL10.CA CLERK S OFFICE
I
I
I
I
I
II MAY 16 AM It: Oi \. PA ~ of' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f.' }
I
I
I
'li2(lbL AAe. ~~c( j);Uj)-0-
f1 ~k£' -+ W~ AJVl eA.£ ML .Aft'l Wa -l-0~ cur1 q
W uJJh;JJa ~ A tt +£5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I{{l-H~-y_/u lluS ·
/--I-{ "SO LV B(u{~Jf) 0 ~ +t: I
f 0..(0 Jt ['10. CA-Cllf~a "3
({ ~y -=t:t=-"'> () a () <t, J b Z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Himanshu bWivedi
2410 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To whom it may concern:
-.
Gel/TrY OF PALO ALTO. CA Y CLERK'S OrnCE.
, f HA Y I 2AM 10: 5!
"f'" ~'.
I am writing this letter to protest the proposed Wastewater and water rate increases. I live at 2410
Bryant Street; Palo Alto, CA.
l-i
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto CA 94301
Dear City Council:
763 E. Charleston Rd.
Palo Alto CA 94303£4706
2. 0 II }llo. 23 7
CITY OF, P,~L9 ALTO, CA cn Y CLERI, S OFfICE
II HAY 26 PH 3: 32
r )
This is a protest against the proposed utility rate changes as apply to the parcel of address 763 E.
Charleston Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303-4706.
I protest the proposed increase in the monthly wastewater rate.
I protest the proposed increase in the monthly water service charge.
Sincerely,
~~"-~e.~~~
Michael C. Fischer
May 9, 2011
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
e· Richard C Placone
601 Chimalus Drive CdlY OF PAL9 {~LTO,CA
Palo Alto, California 94J(J6 TY CLERK S OFFICE
Voice: (650) 493=7217 If MAY r r PM 12: 07
E-mail: rcplacone@sbcgobalnet
Re: Protest of proposed utility rates for 2011
Attn City Clerk and City Council;
Acct Number: 300 12674
Parcel Number 137-08-054-00
Address See letterhead above
This letter is written to protest the proposed increases in water rates and waste water rates. The city
currently extracts millions of dollars form the sizable profits made by the utility department,
including, if! understand this correctly, profits from the water utility. The city management and the
Council have demonstrated over the years, that the utility department profits are used to balance the
city's General Fund. While a certain amount of this transfer of profits may be justified, the ever
increasing amounts are not in my opinion, especially when the Council continues to spend funds for
special interest groups like the children's theater and zoo, while wei are faced with years of annual
deficits. Giving the Council more money only prolongs the inevitable when the Council and the
managers must bring spending to the level the city can afford and stops spending money on
unneeded consultants and such.
In addition, it is my understanding, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HA VB CORRECT INFORMATION
ON TIDS SUBJECT IF I AM WRONG, that it is against state law to use water utility profits for any
purpose other than for the water utility needs. If the city is transferring water profits along with gas
and electric profits, then the law is being violated and this practice must stop. All the more reason
why the water rates should not be increased.
That the city owns the utility department is supposed to be reason for our rates to be lower than
PG&E. They are not. The city should be making efforts to accomplish this once promised benefit.
,'1
Sincerely, ,li ....•. /./ .. y/I" .. /"I./.~{##::-;y. /.'
/t(.pc;t.&.</ ( ~~;;;~
Richard C. Placone --,,-
~
PROTESTING RATE INCREASES
f do not agree the proposed rate increase for water and waste
. water that will be effective~, 2011. .
Property owner name: ManKie Ng'
Property .address: 4250 EI Camino Real #A303. Palo Alto, Ca I:
') ... ;: .... '. /' '184ao:6
. . .
Pa rcel'ti:l.67 .. 55-080-00 . :' -' ~ . -'", :" ' . . . '
"". ",'." "
~d
sj3/JD // -of? -:::j""'"f i! .... c<
-< ("')0 , r-"
\,Q f;J~
~r.-""0 u)O :::c <::j);.
f'\) "'1lCj .. :2:!o Q n-"-oJ Dlj;
lO; ('; *:'J of-p.lo A 1+0
C(-rj cl~y-lL
J-50 ttw,,,,;J tov--AiK,
f"Jo 111 +v I cA1 q f 30 I
fvn~: 1-', I 'll JJ~
loiS [",\Po-v-cv--J e .-0 ~
po.-i 0 ft' to) CIt Cf13~3 ~ ~ 1 J V'" w0V ~ fr> fyVt~st IJ.-o~ -tk. t-J"J.eA-~ W0--5+~ Wbtt,ex'" l;ttili-M:J y""t~ lA.v{j\Ast~.
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.;lOII
I
, . ;q" . • .. f'''' ,
(.
I
•
May 9, 2011
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Alma Silverth~~
3339 Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Council Members:
First, thank you for your service to our city.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE·
" KA Y I I PM 12: 0 I
Second, I wish to protest the proposed water and wastewater rate increases.
Our utilities are operating at a profit, and last year's annual payment to the
city was excessive. Public Utilities should not be operated with the same
principles as for profit corporations.
Please, give us a break for once.
Sincerely,
t/t.m/f ~/t/.ud,Ar'
Alma Silverthorn
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
• CUY OF-PALO'ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .!
" HA ~ 16 AM U = 01
•
4194 King Arthur Ct
Palo Alto CA 94306
May12,2011
, '. ' ~, ,
SUBJECT: WATER RATE INCREASE PROTESTAtioN.
Location: 4194 King Arthur Ct. Palo AltoCA 94306
Parcel Number 137 .. 27-017-09
Utility Account Number 30021657
The proposed water rate increase is yet another indication of the total lack of
competent financial management in Palo Alto government.
We are requested to save water and then we are told that since we did a good job
in conserving water that we now must pay more.
Anyone can postpone truly solving fiscal problems by raising taxes and fees and
spending money we don't have. It takes a real manager to solve problems with
the means at hand. How about showing realleadersbip (and demonstrating how
we can live within our means. Unfortunately many of us who are retired do not
have the luxury of just telling government to give us more money because we
saved water.
Very truly yours
Ct))L G-.-O(fl ~ ·
John A. Martin
'"76 tuho/Y} if" P'Jo,,' c"" c""",,·
:etA""" 5V\b-rY)~{,;b\.l\lI) h ~\'s. w-<d:,b~~' r{"u~e~-\--"-~\.V\~-\
~u....
C. ~o..<~e..s -bho...t w \\\ a..~~eLt f>~~l~ \" ke. 'l'Y)e tV,~ ",1\, "IV\. \ ~~.l
f Y\Cof'f)'e .• I o..-cY'\ ~ \"'N)(.:)S{ c.. ~ YecJ-<({.. ulJ c.v~VVlQ'<\ LJ"4 o l' S
\ l Vi 1"1<.:,) cJ J.J-~ CL q'). Ye~,(s c \J. YY'lo--l","~V'"'. . .
r ~ u.. \-c::. -b ~\('u tes·1 -f:. '-t \' s. C "'-.0.. V\.C';) -e ./ b u... h !='o., c ~q.~~~ Y\"
v.v\\-<. v\~w v'\ Cu. -l ,-,--.f"C.-(-~)"t + ~ 0. V) .:. V\ Co 'I'v\.. --E:. h 0., '-< ~ \ Y t'V\. ~ u.. OJ '-t ttG
(p~'7 ·to-< Ct-V1y't k"vL~ 1t&lJ bo....<;~ 6<'\ f'Y11 ~\'~\A.CA.l".\CVl €.Ve..1
~ e"(")'v\ i C..:> '-'C-.J\, \. 5" <;~ "'< -.ci 1 0... "'\. ch .~ "'-0.. V\ \'<. Y <::> ~-
,/o\.J...,r'So
A,-",,' Q 0 t:t~-c-
'?o-.'fC~ \ ),\u-\.M.bCt\..\ 11.7 -70 -0/'-1-00
'?,7 '5 q K ~ \1\1\..0.... .\;;, ~ L <'>'.:'" ~. 'f. v.\ t CI4 '1Y '3P J..
\.) +~l\'i\'eS u..cC.o ...... V\.{ 10u(~ ~ '3 Y 5
C-. C Z ,
:Do-
::It -..•
0
W
('")~
-'--i -1-< -< ('")0 ,-n
/"1'1," :::0 ):"-..
~, we
0)::>
-rrCj 2:!o n' fTf('") :>
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA .r
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
c;rq C/,tJI/z' If ,-tAY J 6 AM": 05
~~-/7a4?J///m-~,
,P~ i?L~ 1!/2,1 ?~:J~/
D~~~:
~ M/sR ~~~7~ ~e ~ ~
~}n-~ ~ cUA<lk.4/~. 11 ~=cuL.
fllO, /-0 /$'7./:r-~//-<P'<P'. /lief cu/d~,~ 3~7/ 7~C2-~
t;4uz d a-<:-C!C>~ r., 5~o/.:L5'"S~,
~tf~~/·
$U/)d-2J~~&
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
•
736 Layne Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
May 10,2011
CITY OF PALO CITy CLERK'SAOLTO., CA . FFICE
II HAY 16 AM II: 0.
We hereby protest the proposed water and wastewater rate increases as announced
in your notice of April 25, 2011.
Jo Ann Fahnestock
736 Layne Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
•
384 Madeline Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utility account #: 30042376
"
RE: PROTEST AGAINST UTILITY RATE CHANGE
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Madam/Sir:
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
r 'HAY-4 AM ~:26
, ~, , f ,"/.
April 30, 2011
(
This letter is to protest against the proposed increase in wastewater and water meter
service charges for the 2011 fiscal year. We urge the City of Palo Alto Utility
Department to investigate and implement cost-saving measures of operation instead of
increasing 'customer utility charges.
Sincerely,
itlJ)lfiye<
Tetyana Obukhanych
c c
CitvtlerR ccc
··~~!~r~~1;~ .
•
CITY Q& PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OF'F't'cE
l' HAY -5 PH 2=05
. c cc· •• c cccc .cc. c.c .• l,etterto protest the proposa~ the cit~ council consider~d about raising th"S~8
rnrnc .. mac"'vvat~r,.andS1 wasterwater collection services rates for the fiscal year that begms m
. c c conserve water the best we can and been doing our best in our daily life to
cccc 'th~<~nvironment. When we first moved in to the city, we have chosen to pay a much
....... cq .... c CC prpperty) price to clive in a solar powered community in the Vantage of Palo Alto. 13.2%
i'n wastewater charge and 100% increase in monthly water service charge are not
~rr''''n'r~ble, ev~n though it means less than $10 a month for our household of six.
Please reconsider your proposal. Thank you.
c Sincerely:
Kok Hoong Chan & Pei Vee Lee
Account No.: 30021250
Service Address: 935 Mallard Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Larry Hootnick
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Clerk, Palo Alto
Laurence Hootnick
Proposed Water Rate Increase
•
8HY(:Jf' PAL.U ALTO C
After reviewing the data supporting your proposecl_i:lier'Mcrease, I am extremely disappointed for the following two
reasons:
The data as presented are insufficient to make any judgment on the proposal. The premise is that the in~rease is ',~. ,~. primarily due to the cost of purchased water. Yet, nowhere do you show the actual increase for the purchased water or
any data comparing 2011 and 2012. The only data shown is a pie chart by expense element for 2011. I don't understand
why you didn't show detailed cost data by expense element for 2011 and proposed for 2012. Had you showh this, we
could see how much each element is projected to change/grow and what amount and percent of the growth is for
purchased water versus all other cost elements. Additionally, you state that the purchased water costs are expected to
double in 5 years -you should provide a 5 year projection if you have these costs.
Interestingly, for 2011 the non purchased water/capital improvements account for 52% of spending. You do not address
what actions you have taken to reduce the other 48% of the spending. For example, since debt service is 9%, have you
attempted to refinance at lower rates to reduce expenses? Also, do you have the same labor cost/pension problems in
almost every other area of the public sector? If so, what is your action plan to reduce these expenses?
Overall, this analysis is woefully inadequate and gets a no vote from me until these questions are satisfactorily
answered.
While I have no problem in concept with expanding the number of volume levels from 2 to 3 to charge residential users
more if they use a lot more, I find this proposal grossly unfair if you don't provide relief for property owners like myself
who have I~rge lots ( mine is almost an acre with mature planting). While 29 cef seems to be very reasonable for run rate
usage with non or minimal irrigation usage, it is very inadequate during the peak watering billing season from July to
October. Without any upward seasonal adjustment to cover the higher water needs for irrigation during this peak period
the proposed rate change is extremely discriminatory to owners of larger lots like myself. I would not vote for this
proposal unless there is a "peak usage" adjustment. Since your data show that irrigation accounts for 40% of total water
usage, there is no way I could be below 29cef during peak irrigation periods and maintain any reasonable level of
planting.
Overall, I vote no unless more cost data is presented to justify your proposed increases and a fair treatment for owfiers
~ma~~/}
ce-~ce Hoot~~
421 r r II rutTer.iaw.
Palo Alto, California 94306
30022624
1
May 1, 2011 .1
Subject: Protest of water and wastewater rate adjustment
Address: 3021 Ross Road"Palo Alto, CA 94303
, $,' . "'f'';'
Dear City Clerk,
I am writing to officially protest the utility rate adjustments for wastewater and water.
~~
Seavan Sternheim
Homeowner: 3021 Ross Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
To:
Re:
City of Palo Alto
Utility Rate Change
To Whom it may concern
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S g.FfICE
II HAY I 8 PM 2: 3.
__
From: Johnny Naber
~~;Ros$'Road'
I received your "Notice of Utility Rate Change" dated April 25, 2011 wherein it specified I
may submit a written protest. The following is my protest. .
I have always and will always believe that a person should take care of the~s~lvfi~ and
pay their own way through life. I have no complaint with paying my fair share$itlhe City
needs more funds to pay for the services I receive. That's only fair. What I strongly C
object to .however is the same solution the Federal Government is using, asking midtUe
class workers to bear the majority of the burden while giving special breaks to over-
privileged people and big business.
A wastewater hookup in and of itself does not put any burden at all on a wastewater
treatment plant. A burden is created only by actual waste that is sent to that plant. The
more waste that is sent the larger the burden on the treatment plant. My modest single
bathroom home sends down an extremely small amount of waste. A vast majority of that
comes from the shower and kitchen sink, both of which need little or no treatment at all.
That leaves a single toilet as my very modest burden on the wastewater treatment pJant.
l;Jasic rates tor. Residential, Restaurants and Commercial customers have all been
!ncreaSed thEi 'sam~ amount anct that's Jelir. th.eburden pl,ac.~~ qn tbe was~~w.ater tre~tment .. planfbyF{t:)staYrant~arid9qmrne.rcial c.~,~tOr1ler~'h9w,evefcah·t;)e,· a~d.· ',:',"
usually is,enormously larger ttlan what my hO'rnE)"rould pdssibl~i' breiifeso'there'is 'a
tiere~ .rate. schedule for those customers. Those rates are going down and that is the
opposite' o.f fa Jr. The waste from .Restaurants and Comrn~rcial custQmers is the source
of the vasfmajority of the burden.on a treatment plant and:theygetareduced:rate1
How do you justify that'? . (That's a rhetorical question, of'course Y9u cannot justify it.)
I have the same issue with the water rates. I do not evenwaterthelawns now to'
conserve water and I see my rates will decrease 8.8% for the first 6 Hundred Cubic Feet
but then for the next two rate tiers they go up 8.1 and 35.8%!!!!! respectively whereas
Commercial rates go down 9.3% for 14 Hundred Cubic Feet and do not increase at all
above that. Again that is the opposite of fair. Again the vast majority of the burden on the
water system/supply is coming from the Commercial sector and yet they get a bigger
break. If I for example were to use 50ccf of water it would cost $321.88 but a
Commercial customer would only pay $178.42 for the same amount of water. In fact
they could use 66.27ccf of water and still pay less than I would. Another way to describe
their s~vi.ngs is they .could get 1,627 CU,bjc Feet = 12,170,8 gailoris of, water forfree.
~~1.I~;fre~ t(),them, nQtfi"e,~ for me~ I ~nd, other m'~Q,le. ¢ICl$S.nom~pWller~ will b.e, ·paYi.ng
~~::~~~:t~f~~;~~:-~~n:~m,~~~~~~~~t(r~'~ir~~~e~Utrurgeyouto
mq':l~r:e. the.s,~me sac.rific.~$ from ~y.erY(m~,flPt.P..lAt mQstqnb~ .burden '~rl,h()s~ who can
:a~k,hy:;tolhu··~,·leasi,.·.·· ·"//5)'I··~V~)" .:£j>~> ' , .. ' ..... ,
,///'/ / // / /.
John Naber ~~/ .'" L/·:· ( c_ t l ".r ~
// {/
~J'1 (;/~.a/&./J...../
c/'/??'l~dsC«eW-0 Av 2"o/~~/~M->d/
;::U~~U -duB -??7u&:,:UcjJ /~b~~ ~~'-:J / C?/7!/LC-~4j $/?7~-?7~/f ~t..L/ ,~-G ~V P-c~ '~~14'7g;0
a,i:td L't~~r? / C'7V:>~~ §V~--C-:l?<:?' .' ~--L£0 ~?/ Yv,~ P?;7v' /~. v ~//t &.,;/ r / / _ -/' 7L -;4. 7 v -• 'b~k' , / .-
A-/:Y) (;/ZLA..£e..,,::J/ t:~r..-~ ec77J~t--U&0 ~?-/~/~ ~C~n:..//7c:V>d~~
>J1 ~ ~~7j/~£A/ fi" d/ U'Z;://A/ hz/?V /~LIU/?-~'
/~n?/v~d; ~c~£<Ptf/?O~~~ ~/~0?~rbfP<:C(:;/
4t17Z/ r:~ /-;t:!/A~) ~-rz/ A£ 4!L'L~/ Z; /l77~c'7/' ~~//'-;?t-/
~r.v; ~/. --?' ~ k&V.42() crd :Y ~~'C;::-4>~ d<UV
-Vn/ I/~£b ~ Cc~~_?n~ ~vZdu~au: VLdA-£.'
Un:<:/7W~LC:o//-V~CU£Ud/.~n./~~/J'-·t;u-.V--.
d/~' ~t--,~t---~ '. ,-Y ?t/}?z/;f ~~/"/~ 4.6, ';rne::::e://;Je:./.. ,~/ ~~
d" ~. J ".' ~/; ~ • V J ~) /77cz/ /'1l-£' /~~ /lccY r Z' ~ ~ /0/' kh t:0~. H-&/{,//J7 ff' 6e-.
,//'P~~~///,/YJ7~~/YyL~~~/ . .--e;£c~~ /;??~'
--1:::,<7/ C' /7'F~ .
,.J/~ C7 /77 ~~~/C/"« ,,/ ~CL'/ucf< A 7vDZ~'a;~
/ / j£/'-U/ ;:t~~/~&~£vc..£o'utC~/ c} t?n-<udjC:~/7e./ ,,-6' -Z:h/'
~d-~u/U.7/"ZL£~ ~-t/?7 c/U/£,64J c:~c~:,/'jc:u.,v
~/ /z;;ft;/L?~Cf ;7~~ ~~I/~c::?n c'L./ ?<-z:Lv_6r~/~7&7:?U./
,/U/lj' iL,r7~ ;/ ~~C.L' ~ , -
t:!
~~~/ /. C ~'Lo/4C/,?5, (-k2dP'7d
£tVe~;// ff C~rhoA
,,,3Yd7!fOS5!/oc:tL
7~/o ////-0 Y~~3c/.3
J ,;201 1
I
City Clerk
CITY OF P}\LO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERWS OFFICE
II MAY 26 PM 3: 32
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Sir,
•
.f
614 Wellsbury Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
May 22,2011
We're responding to the "Notice of Utility Rate Chang~". We object
to the utility rate adjustment increases to both the water and waste water
rates. We are against all of the proposed charges.
Our assessor's parcel number is, 132-56-019-00 and our utility
account number is 300 22364.
Marjorie and David Masters
j
•
TO: City of Palo Alto
FROM: Frank Kwong & Caly Chiu
CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
" riA Y I I PH 12: 0'
RE: Written Protest AGAINST all of the proposed charges on water, wastewater and
refuse)
DATE: 5/2/2011
WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST ALL OF THE PROPOSED CHARGES (WATER
AND REFUSE).
Assessor's Parcel Number: 086-18-003-00
Property address: 837 Wintergreen Way Palo Alto,CA 94303
City of Palo Alto Account Number: 119973-30315
We protest the rate increase on both water and refuse.
Thank you.
Signed:
j
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1688)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Summary Title: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission’s Recommendation to Approve a Resolution
to Adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance
Strategy
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve a
Resolution to adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and the SBx7-7 compliance
strategy.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto (City) is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
every five years under the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The UWMP
assesses the reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon under both normal and
dry hydrologic conditions to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and
future water demands.
The proposed 2010 UWMP is very similar to the City’s 2005 UWMP except for two noteworthy
differences. First, the 2010 UWMP includes a plan to meet the requirement to reduce per
capita water usage by 20% by 2020 under the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7).
Second, the proposed water efficiency measures are expected to reduce demand by 13% by
2030 while the 2005 UWMP’s water reduction goal was 4.3% of demand by 2030. Additionally,
the 2010 UWMP describes the 2009 water supply agreement with San Francisco, including the
recently adopted allocation formula for water supply shortages such as droughts. The UAC
reviewed the proposed 2010 UWMP in May 2011 and unanimously recommends Council
adoption.
Background
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every California water agency
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water per year or providing service to more than
3,000 connections to prepare an UWMP. The UWMP is prepared every five years by urban
water suppliers to assess the reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon under
both normal and dry hydrologic conditions to ensure adequate water supplies are available to
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1688)
meet existing and future water demands. The City must adopt the 2010 UWMP by July 1, 2011
and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of adoption.
Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), adopted in November 2009, mandates a statewide per capita water
use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. Urban water suppliers are required to identify a
baseline usage (expressed in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) for their service area,
calculate a target usage level to meet the 20% reduction, and include a plan for compliance in
the 2010 UWMP.
The City has not experienced significant changes in the water supply distribution system and
reliability since the preparation of the 2005 UWMP. For the 2010 UWMP, the City has updated
the 2005 UWMP and addressed the changes to the UWMP Act since 2005. This plan includes all
information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6
(Urban Water Management Planning) as well as requirements of the California Water Code
Division 6, Part 2.55 (Water Conservation Bill of 2009).
To provide information and encourage community participation, the City prepared an UWMP
webpage with background information and the proposed schedule leading up to adoption of
the UWMP1. The webpage link was sent to local and regional groups for wider distribution2.
On March 24, 2011, the Utilities Department held a public participation meeting (Attachment D
contains the sign-in sheet from that meeting) with the community to discuss the 2010 UWMP,
the proposed SBx7-7 strategy, and to encourage input from the community on the Draft
UWMP.
Discussion
The UAC reviewed the proposed 2010 UWMP at its May 2011 meeting. The report to the UAC
summarizing the 2010 UWMP is provided as Attachment B to this report.
The UWMP describes the City’s water system, supply sources, and demand-side (water
efficiency) measures. Preparation of the 2010 UWMP was coordinated with the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which supplied descriptions of the new 25-
year Water Supply Agreement executed with San Francisco in 2009 as well as the recently
approved formulae for dividing the available water in a drought between San Francisco and the
BAWSCA agencies and between the BAWSCA agencies.
1 www.cityofpaloalto.uwmp2Tuolumne River Trust, Canopy, Community Environmental Action Partnership, Sierra Club, Acterra, Local Agency
Formation Commission, Wholly H2O, Sustainable Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara County, Stanford University, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation
Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Cities of East Palo Alto,Menlo Park,Mountain View,Redwood City,San
Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale, the Purissima Hills Water District,Bay Area Water Conservation Coordinators,
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and Mayor Sid Espinosa’s Monthly newsletter.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1688)
One key for Council to be aware of is the use of the 2009 Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) forecasts for population and employment to develop the water use forecasts. Figure 1
below presents the population forecast used compared to the forecast used in the 2005 UWMP
and the actual population as of the 2010 Census. Also shown is the preliminary population
projection used by the Planning Department in an update to Council on the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CMR: 152:10). However, this projection was not adopted or approved by the
Council. Using the 2009 ABAG projections does not indicate that the City agrees with these
projections. In fact, staff is aware that many believe these projections are too high. However,
for purposes of planning water supply needs, using the 2009 ABAG projections is a conservative
assumption.
Figure 1: Population Projections used in the 2010 UWMP
A notable element of the 2010 UWMP is the addition of the SBx7-7 (20% reduction by 2020)
targets and the proposed expansion of water efficiency measures.
The projections of water purchases from San Francisco are shown in Figure 2 below. Note that
the projection is very similar to the projection included in the 2005 UWMP. Also shown in the
figure is the City’s permanent entitlement to water from San Francisco, also known as the
Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG).
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Figure 2: Water Purchase Forecast
One of the major changes in the 2010 UWMP from the 2005 UWMP is the level of estimated
savings over the 20-year planning horizon. As shown in Figure 3 below, in the 2005 UWMP,
water savings from efficiency measures was expected to be 4.3% by 2030,while the updated
2010 UWMP forecasts water efficiency savings to account for 13% of projected water demand
by 2030. Staff is comfortable with these increased savings projections since actual savings from
water efficiency programs were higher than the savings targets established in the 2005 UWMP.
Figure 3: Actual and Projected Water Efficiency Savings
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Fiscal Year
Cumulative Water Savings (Acre-Feet)
Actual Savings 2005-2010 Projected Savings from 2005 UWMP Projected Savings from 2010 UWMP
4% of
water demand
13% of
water demand
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1688)
The increased savings from water efficiency measures is expected to cost more than the
programs in the 2005 UWMP. Figure 4 below shows the projected annual costs for the water
efficiency programs in the 2010 UWMP compared to the cost estimates in the 2005 UWMP.
Figure 4: Projected Water Efficiency Program Costs
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Fiscal Year
Annual Implementation Costs to Utility and Cost-
Sharing Partners
Projected Costs from 2005 UWMP Projected Costs from 2010 UWMP
Due to the aggressive water efficiency programs proposed in the 2010 UWMP, the City is
expected to meet the SBx7-7 (20% savings by 2020) targets as shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: SBx7-7 Compliance Target and Water Use Projections
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Commission Review and Recommendations
On May 4, 2011, staff presented the Draft 2010 UWMP and proposed SBx7-7 compliance
methodology to the UAC. The UAC asked about the regulatory drivers behind the 2010 UWMP
and the level of discretionary control the City has over the content of the UWMP. Staff
explained that the 2010 UWMP contains all the elements required by law and does not contain
any dramatic departures in policy since the 2005 UWMP, but did mention two differences from
the 2005 UWMP worth noting –the new efficiency program targets and the SBx7-7 compliance
program.
For the 2010 UWMP and future savings projections, the City plans to use new measures to
achieve the significant increase in water conservation savings when compared to the 2005
UWMP. Regarding the proposed SBx7-7 compliance strategy, staff noted that the City has the
flexibility to review progress prior to the 2015 UWMP and make adjustments to the compliance
target methodology in the 2015 UWMP.
The UAC discussed the role of the increased cost of SFPUC water in encouraging conservation
potential and the opportunity for staff to proactively work with residents and businesses to
capture additional savings. Staff outlined the current conservation program and outreach
methodologies and highlighted the increased conservation potential included in the 2010
UWMP. Staff also agreed that quantifying some conservation savings will be a challenge and
will need to be monitored closely.
The UAC inquired if the UWMP is consistent with the City’s current water reduction goals, and if
there was any risk the UWMP may be referenced as justification for more prescriptive water
reduction measures in the City. Staff clarified the UWMP is largely a planning document with a
focus on future dry and normal year supply balances. There are no plans at present to propose
any new measures since the Council recently adopted an ordinance including both the 2010
State Green Building Code (CALGreen)and the Department of Water Resources Water Efficient
Landscape ordinance. The 20% by 2020 reduction plan that was approved by Council on April
19, 2010 (CMR 212:10) and the UWMP are structurally consistent.
No members of the community presented comments during the UAC meeting and no written
comments have been received from the community to-date.
The UAC voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that Council approve the proposed 2010
UWMP and SBx7-7 target methodology. The excerpted minutes from the UAC May 2011
meeting are provided as Attachment E.
Recent Updates to the Draft 2010 UWMP
Since the UAC meeting, staff made several minor changes to the draft UWMP to update or
clarify various discussion points. The changes are summarized as follows:
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1688)
1.Section 1 –
a.A table depicting the City’s coordination with other agencies for development
of the UWMP was updated to include recent activity.
b.Staff inserted language to emphasize the UWMP serves an important role in
informing ongoing and future City planning and policy efforts, including the
Comprehensive Plan Update and the Urban Forest Master Plan.
2.Section 3 –The description of potential desalination opportunities was shortened to
remove extraneous information.
3.Section 5 -An additional description was added to the Demand Management
Measures (DMM) section to reinforce the direct link between the City’s conservation
measures and ability to meet the SBx7-7 targets.
4.Section 7 –A table illustrating the approximate share of available water for Palo Alto
during single and multiple year water shortages was adjusted to reflect the fact the
new Tier II drought allocation formula requires a minimum 10% cutback for the
BAWSCA agencies. An earlier version depicted Palo Alto’s share of available water
during a 10% system-wide cutback to be greater than the required minimum reduction
The draft UWMP has been available online for public review and comment since the May 4 UAC
meeting. No public input has been received to-date.
Resource Impact
The Water Enterprise Funds for FY 2011 DMM programs included in this UWMP are allocated in
the Utilities Demand Side Management Operating Budget. Additional funds, as necessary, will
be included in future budget requests for Council review and potential adoption. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Santa Clara Valley Water District may be
presented to Council for potential approval in subsequent years to assist the City in its ability to
offer cost-effective water efficiency programs to residential and business customers. Water
efficiency measures may be evaluated annually for conservation potential leading up to the
2015 UWMP. Over time, the program offerings may change based on technology, efficiency
potential or community interest, though the overall savings goal will remain constant.
The City continues to examine methods to expand the use of recycled water. The City expects
that the costs of implementing expanded recycled water use can be reduced through a
combination of regional coordination and state and federal matching funds. Staff will
continually evaluate opportunities for program partnership with BAWSCA and other regional
alliances to assist in meeting the City’s water reduction goals and community interest.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key
Strategy 6: “Provide targeted customer and environmental programs and service” and the
Council policy to reduce water usage by 20% by 2020 (CMR: 212:10).
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Environmental Review
Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and SBx7-7 compliance strategy is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural
Resources) and 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
·Attachment B: UAC Report_2010 UWMP (PDF)
·Attachment C: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (PDF)
·Attachment D: Public Meeting Sign-in Sheet (PDF)
·Attachment E_Excerpted Minutes of May 4_2011 Special UAC Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Page 1 of 12
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 4, 2011
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Council to Approve and Adopt the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
REQUEST
Staff requests the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
approve and adopt the 2010 UWMP and the recommended SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
BACKGROUND
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every California water agency
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water per year or providing service to more than
3,000 connections to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is
prepared every five years by urban water suppliers to assess the reliability of water sources over
a 20-year planning horizon under both normal and dry hydrologic conditions and to ensure
adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands.
Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), adopted in November 2009, mandates a statewide per capita water
use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. Urban water suppliers are required to identify a baseline
usage (expressed in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) for their service area, calculate a target
usage level to meet the 20% reduction, and include a plan for compliance in the 2010 UWMP.
In compliance with SBx7-7, the City of Palo Alto’s (City’s) 2010 UWMP addresses these items.
Normally, UWMPs must be adopted by each water supplier by December 31 of years ending in
five and zero. However, due to recent changes in the UWMP requirements, the state extended
the deadline by six months for the 2010 UWMP. The City must adopt the 2010 UWMP by July
1, 2011 and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of
adoption. The City began preparing this update of the UWMP in winter 2010.
DISCUSSION
For the 2010 UWMP, the City has updated the 2005 UWMP and addressed any changes as
required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act and related legislation. In terms of
water supply sources, the 2010 UWMP does not contain a departure in policy or direction from
the 2005 UWMP. Apart from state requirements for reporting, the City already undergoes water
resource planning on an ongoing basis. The main approach the City uses is to prepare a Water
Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP), in which all water resource options are evaluated, as well as a
Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, which includes projections and plans for
implementing water efficiency measures. The 2010 UWMP provides background on the WIRP
Page 2 of 12
as well as an updated analysis of current and planned demand side management measures
developed to meet new State requirements for potable water use reductions. The 2010 UWMP
contains much more aggressive targets for water conservation in order to meet State and City
water reduction goals. A detailed description of these measures is included in the Demand
Management Measures (DMM)1 section of this report and in the UWMP.
The 2010 UWMP contains the following sections:
Public involvement and coordination with other agencies;
Description of current and potential water sources, including the potential for expanded
use of recycled water in the City;
The City's water demand projections;
Plans to implement water efficiency (conservation) programs;
Discussion of (non-drought) emergency plans;
The sufficiency of supplies from San Francisco, particularly in droughts; and
Drought response plans for droughts of varying severity.
Each of these sections, including new developments since the 2005 UWMP, is summarized
below.
Public Involvement and Coordination with Other Agencies
The City has actively encouraged community participation in its urban water management
planning efforts. The City also coordinates its planning activities with neighboring communities
and water agencies. Various stakeholders including environmental organizations and community
groups were notified of the City’s plan to review and update the UWMP in December 2010.
Letters explaining how to access the City’s draft 2010 UWMP were also sent to the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the County of Santa
Clara, the Cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City, the
Purissima Hills Water District, Stanford University and the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) for review and comments. Concurrently, the City developed a web site
with background information and links to related resources to educate the public and encourage
participation in the process (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp).
On March 24, 2011, the City of Palo Alto Utilities staff held a public participation meeting to
solicit feedback from the community. The attendance sheet from the meeting is included as
Attachment B. Members of the public were also encouraged to review the 2010 UWMP and
provide written comments.
Prior to the meeting when the City Council considers adoption of the plan, notices will be placed
in the local daily and weekly newspapers informing the public of the opportunities to comment
on the City’s 2010 UWMP update. The draft 2010 UWMP is available on the City’s web site,
and hard copies are available at City Hall for public review.
1 Although commonly referred to as Demand Side Management (DSM) measures, the California Water Code
specifically requires an urban water supplier to report on Demand Management Measures (DMM), therefore this
terminology is used throughout the 2010 UWMP and related reports.
Page 3 of 12
Current and Potential Water Sources
The City’s potable water is supplied by the SFPUC from the Hetch Hetchy system. In June
2009, the City signed a new Water Supply Agreement (WSA) with the City and County of San
Francisco. The new contract expires in 2034, and the City anticipates maintaining the current
level of reliance on SFPUC supplies for the foreseeable future.
In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to meet service goals for water
quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply, the SFPUC has undertaken the
Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), which was approved October 31, 2008. The
WSIP is aimed at enhancing the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing
high quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner.
Many of the water supply and reliability projects evaluated in the WSIP were originally put forth
in the SFPUC’s 2000 Water Supply Master Plan. The WSIP is scheduled to be completed in
December 2015.
The City is implementing the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project). When
complete, the Project components will include five refurbished wells, three new wells and a new
2.5 million gallon storage tank. The primary purpose of the Project is to provide water supply
and fire suppression in the event of a catastrophic disruption of supply. However, the Project
will also enable the use of groundwater for supplemental supplies in droughts, as was done on
several occasions during previous water shortages. The decision to use groundwater as a
supplemental supply during a drought is not addressed in the 2010 UWMP. There are no plans
to use groundwater in normal (non-drought) years for water supply.
The City currently uses recycled water for certain non-potable uses. The largest current uses are
for irrigation of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park and in processes at the Palo
Alto RWQCP. Additional uses of recycled water in Palo Alto that do not replace potable water
include for wetlands enhancement at Emily Renzel Marsh and in additional processes at the
RWQCP. Although there are no current plans to expand the use of recycled water in Palo Alto,
the City has completed several studies and reports on the feasibility of extending the recycled
water delivery system to the Stanford Research Park. The City is in the process of preparing an
Environmental Impact Report for the project.
Other supply options include executing water transfer agreements with other agencies and
constructing a desalination plant. The City has no current plans for either of these options, but is
participating with BAWSCA and the SCVWD on efforts to identify and evaluate new supply
sources.
Water Demand
To forecast water usage through 2030, the City uses an “end use” model that determines water
use for each customer class down to the water-using fixture level. The model is calibrated to a
baseline year that is representative of normal water usage, and then incorporates population and
employment growth, efficiency measure penetration, plumbing code changes and other metrics
to build a long-term water usage forecast.
Page 4 of 12
The key inputs to the model used for the 2010 UWMP are the population and employment
projections, which are based primarily on a hybrid of two sources. Census 2010 data was used
for baseline population modeling purposes, but the Census 2010 employment numbers were not
available in time for this report. For pre-2010 employment numbers, and also for future
population and employment projections through 2030, staff relied upon projections prepared in
2009 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The Planning Department is in the process of updating its population forecast for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As part of this process, the Planning Department released
preliminary projections (CMR:152:10), as illustrated in Table 1 below. The mid-growth forecast
is largely based on internal growth expectations, while the high-growth scenario is based on the
ABAG 2009 projections. In March 2011, data from Census 2010 indicated that Palo Alto’s
population in 2010 was 64,403.
Table 1: High and Mid-Growth Scenarios
While Planning provided these projections, there was no Council action to “adopt” a specific
growth scenario, and Council action is not expected on the Comprehensive Plan projections until
late 2011. For the purposes of projecting water demand for the 2010 UWMP, staff used the 2009
ABAG projections, which are the same as the “high growth” scenario. Using the 2009 ABAG
projections does not indicate that the City agrees with these projections. In fact, staff is aware
that many believe these projections are too high. However, for purposes of planning water
supply needs, using the 2009 ABAG projections is a conservative assumption. It is prudent to
ensure that the City accounts for unexpected growth and other unforeseen factors for future water
demand projections. The population and employment projections used for the 2010 UWMP are
shown in Table 2 below starting with the population figure for 2010 from the 2010 Census.
Page 5 of 12
Table 2: Population - Current and Projected
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Service Area Population 64,403 66,200 70,400 73,400 80,400 84,000
Five year change (percent) 2.79% 6.34% 4.26% 9.54% 4.48%
Total Employment 76,480 76,740 77,010 78,550 80,320 82,160
Five year change (percent) 0.34% 0.35% 2.00% 2.25% 2.29%
Based on these projections, Palo Alto’s population is expected to grow about 30.4%, or 1.22%
per year on average, from 64,403 in 2010 to about 84,000 in 2030. The total employment in Palo
Alto’s service area is expected to grow by 7.43%, or 0.30% per year on average, from about
76,480 in 2010 to 82,160 in 2030. With these growth projections, future water consumption is
expected to grow by 22% from 2010 to 2030. This result is largely due to the effect of planned
water conservation program activities, in addition to the impacts of “natural conservation”
resulting from changes to the plumbing and appliance codes and permanent conservation savings
from behavioral changes.
The City has a contractual entitlement (Individual Supply Guarantee, or “ISG”) from the SFPUC
regional water system of 17.07 million gallons per day (mgd), or 19,118 acre-feet per year
(AFY). At present, demands are considerably lower than the ISG and the City does not
anticipate water usage will exceed the contractual entitlement in the foreseeable future.
The City purchased about 12,263 AF from the SFPUC in 2010. Before the last drought in 1985,
the City’s purchases were 18,700 AF. In 1976, the City purchased over 20,000 AF. This level
of water use reduction can be attributed to many factors, including early adoption of efficiency
measures and conservation. Table 3 provides the projection for SFPUC purchases for the 2010
UWMP planning horizon.
Table 3: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Projected SFPUC demand 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118
Difference 4,866 4,962 4,766 4,148
In water supply shortages (droughts), supply cutbacks will depend on the severity of the drought.
The percentage reduction to Palo Alto depends on two predetermined allocation formulas that
are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
The 2010 UWMP addresses the City’s requirements under the Water Conservation Bill of 2009
(SBx7-7). The statute requires water suppliers to reduce average per capita daily water
consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. Water suppliers can choose one of four different
methods to calculate the baseline from which the 20% reduction is calculated. Staff has
evaluated the four methods based on several criteria and has determined that the method that is
most suitable for the City is Method 1, a 20% reduction from a selected baseline period. This
method allows water suppliers to select a baseline of the average use over a 10-year period
Page 6 of 12
ending no earlier than 2004 and no later than 2010. For the City, the optimal 10-year period is
from 1994 to 2004. Using future water usage and population projections, staff has determined
that the planned water efficiency measures will result in enough savings to meet the SBx7-7
target as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: SB 7 Compliance Projection
While staff is providing an initial evaluation of the SBx7-7 baseline and target for the 2010
UWMP, it is important to note that SBx7-7 allows water suppliers to make additional
adjustments to their compliance methodology and future forecasts in the 2015 UWMP. Staff
will re-evaluate the current approach and make necessary adjustments in the 2015 UWMP.
Demand Management Measures (DMM)
A water supplier’s UWMP must document implementation of its DMMs by either providing the
required information for each DMM or submitting a copy of its 2009-2010 approved California
Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices (BMP) report2. The
2010 UWMP describes the 25 water efficiency programs that Palo Alto plans to implement over
the next 20 years and includes a report on the BMPs to the CUWCC. As part of the overall
water conservation efforts to comply with the BMPs, the City and SCVWD have partnered over
the last nine years to promote and cost-share water efficiency programs for Palo Alto customers.
A majority of the DMMs included in the 2010 UWMP are currently funded through a
2 The City of Palo Alto is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding with CUWCC. The CUWCC
developed a set of BMPs for urban water conservation that member agencies report biennially.
Page 7 of 12
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for water conservation program administration with
SCVWD3. Through this cost-sharing agreement, the City pays roughly half of the cost to
administer the programs. The City also administers some DMMs in-house or through separate
contracts with outside vendors. The City continues to evaluate opportunities for program
partnership opportunities with BAWSCA and other regional alliances.
In 2004, BAWSCA and its member agencies analyzed over 32 different measures using the same
end-use model developed for calculating the long-term forecast. The City selected programs
most likely to achieve the greatest water savings, while still being cost-effective for the utility
and community as a whole. These programs were reflected in the 2005 UWMP. Following the
2005 UWMP, a number of the City’s DMMs have changed. Program changes are the result of
increased water reduction goals, updates to correspond with State reporting requirements,
changes in technology for water using fixtures and changes in county-wide program offerings by
SCVWD, including those that the City cost-shares with SCVWD.
The following measures address the DMMs identified in the Urban Water Management Planning
Act, BMP coverage requirements, and the City’s SBx7-7 compliance target:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers
2. Weather-Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
4. Residential Turf Replacement
5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
F. High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2. Commercial and Multi-Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts
1. Commercial Water Audits
2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
4. CII High Efficiency Toilet Direct Installation Program
J. Conservation Pricing
K. Water Conservation Coordinator
L. Water Waste Prohibition
M. Residential Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Replacement
3 In July 2010, Council approved an MOU with SCVWD to provide up to $271,785 per fiscal year for a total of
$815,355 over three fiscal years for the administration of and funding for water conservation programs for City of
Palo Alto Utilities customers (CMR: 295:10).
Page 8 of 12
N. New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations
O. Irrigation Classes for Homeowners
P. Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Q. Residential Graywater Reuse
Descriptions and implementation details of each program are provided in the 2010 UWMP. The
water savings4, utility implementation costs and program participation targets are also provided.
Utility implementation costs include total unit and administrative costs borne by the City and its
cost-sharing partners, including the SCVWD5.
Table 4 below shows the cumulative water savings and total annual program costs for all DMMs
to be implemented over the next twenty years in five-year increments. Utility implementation
costs are expected to decline over time as the number of new participants in current efficiency
programs decreases. Participation is expected to decrease with market saturation of efficient
devices that will become the standard option for consumers. Plus, state and local building and
plumbing codes continue to mandate increased efficiency standards for indoor and outdoor water
use in new construction and renovated properties. For these reasons, a number of conservation
incentives will either become unnecessary or will no longer be cost-effective to implement. The
City will continue to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and applicability of conservation incentives
to ensure it is meeting City and State water efficiency goals.
Table 4: Cumulative Water Savings and Program Costs
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cumulative Water Savings
(AFY) 415 1,083 1,651 1,810 2,247
Program Costs6 $580,160 $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604
Figure 2 below depicts the City’s historic water purchases from the SFPUC, use of recycled
water, the forecast water demand as well as the water savings expected from the planned DMMs.
4 Water savings for some measures are still yet to be determined; e.g. water waste prohibition, conservation pricing,
rainwater harvesting, and graywater reuse systems; and are not quantified in the 2010 UWMP. 5 Total program costs include unit and administrative costs to all utilities involved in delivering the program.
Annual costs to the City are roughly half of the total program costs provided here. 6 Costs include budgeted conservation funding through the MOU with SCVWD for administration of conservation
programs, administrative costs borne by the SCVWD and the City, and costs for programs administered by the City
in-house or by an outside vendor.
Page 9 of 12
Figure 2: Past and Forecasted Potable and Recycled Water Use
and Water Efficiency Program Savings
Reliability and Emergency Planning
The reliability of the City’s water system depends upon two basic factors: (1) the reliability of
the local distribution system under the City’s control, and (2) the reliability of the regional water
system under the control of the SFPUC. The regional system’s reliability deficiencies are being
addressed as part of the WSIP. However, until the WSIP is complete, which is not expected until
2015, the regional system is vulnerable to outages of up to 60 days in a disaster, such as large
earthquake.
Since the SFPUC regional water system is vulnerable to earthquakes, at least until the WSIP is
completed, local distribution system reliability is important. In addition, the SFPUC regional
water system is subject to temporary outages due to such factors as water quality events that
could mean that service from SFPUC could be cut off for short periods. In 1999, a study of Palo
Alto’s distribution system revealed that it was deficient and needed additional storage and the
capability of reliably using groundwater to endure such an emergency.7 The study also identified
capital improvements to allow the City to provide eight-hour emergency water supplies.
Subsequent studies showed that the capital improvements recommended by the study could assist
in shortages such as a multi-year drought and 30 to 60 day outages as well as the 8-hour outage
they were designed to handle.8
7 Carollo Engineers, Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Study, December 1999. 8 Carollo Engineers, Long-Term Water Supply Study, May 2000. Carollo Engineers, Groundwater Supply
Feasibility Study, April 2003.
Page 10 of 12
To address the deficiency, City Council approved the Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project, which is currently under construction. Until these local improvements are completed,
the City is vulnerable to outages of up to 60 days in a catastrophic event, such as a large
earthquake, that could prevent water deliveries from the SFPUC regional water system.
Drought-time Availability of SFPUC Supplies
In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers9 and San Francisco adopted a Water
Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and
wholesale customers during system-wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier 1 Plan”)10. The
Tier 1 Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any
wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water “banked”
by a wholesale customer through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be
transferred. The Tier 1 Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30, 2034,
unless extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers.
The wholesale customers recently adopted the “Tier 2 Plan”, which allocates the collective
wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. The Tier 2 allocation plan
is based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each wholesale customer. The
Tier 2 Plan requires that the water allocation factors for each agency be calculated each year in
preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. The Tier 2 Plan will expire in 2018 unless
extended by the wholesale customers.
As the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in
SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns or
changes in residential per capita water use), the final allocation for each wholesale customer will
also change. It is difficult to predict what that allocation may be in the future. For illustration
purposes, staff is providing one possible outcome using the example provided in the Tier 2 Plan
adopted by the City Council11, as calculated for FY 2009. Table 5 below illustrates how much
water would be available to the City from the regional system under different reduction
scenarios using actual water purchases from FY 2009.
Table 5: Palo Alto Share of Available Water - AFY
Deliveries During Multiple
Dry Years
Demand
(FY
2009)
One
Critical
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
System-wide Shortage 0% 10% 10% 20% 20%
BAWSCA Allocation (AF) 182,885 164,596 164,596 133,796 133,796
City of Palo Alto (AF) 13,026 12,328 12,328 10,021 10,021
Availability of Water for Palo
Alto (Percent of Normal)
100% 94.65% 94.65% 76.94% 76.94%
9 The wholesale customers are the entities that purchase water from the SFPUC regional system and are members of BAWSCA 10 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply Agreement
with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP. 11 Drought Implementation Plan, ID # 1308
Page 11 of 12
Drought Contingency Plan
Palo Alto has experience with severe droughts that resulted in rationing of water from the
SFPUC. During those droughts, residents and businesses were able to cut back water
consumption to meet the reduction targets. The City’s actions in those droughts included the
introduction of rate schedules to promote reduced usage, the implementation of emergency water
restrictions and focused public outreach campaigns to provide information on the shortage as
well as ways to efficiently use available water.
The 2010 UWMP outlines actions that the City would take in droughts of varying degree of
severity. This is unchanged from the actions outlined in the 2005 UWMP. Table 6 below shows
the plan for the different levels of shortage.
Table 6: Drought Response Strategy
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV
Target Water
Savings
5% - 10%
10% -20%
20%- 35%
35% - 50%
Information
Outreach
and Audit
Program
Continuation of
existing
programs plus a
low level media
campaign
Increased advertising,
availability of kits with
low-cost devices
Escalated outreach
efforts and media
campaign. High
water users targeted.
Further escalated
outreach efforts. Focus
on survival strategies
and prioritization of
water use.
Demand-Side
Management
Programs
Continuation of
existing
programs,
evaluation of
new programs
Augmented programs as
necessary to achieve
reduction targets
Programs continued
with monitoring of
reductions to
determine whether
to increase program
incentive levels
Additional program
efforts targeted to
indoor water use, if that
area shows potential.
Rate
Structures
Standard rates
already
encourage
conservation
Implementation of rates
with consumption tiers
for non single-family
residential customers
Rates as in Stage II
with steeper prices
for higher usage
tiers
Allotment method
introduced for first
time.
Water Use
Restrictions
Only permanent
water use
ordinance – no
new restrictions
apply.
More vigilant
enforcement of water use
restrictions and addition
of new restrictions.
Commence issuance of
warning citations.
Additional
emergency water
use restrictions
added.
Enforcement efforts
increased.
Severe emergency
water use restrictions.
Rigorous enforcement
Recycled
Water Use
Advertise availability
of recycled water for
trucked delivery
Additional
Expense
$30,000 $55,000 $100,000 $150,000
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
B. March 24, 2011 Public meeting sign-in sheet
PREPARED BY: Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
REVIEWED BY: Joyce Kinnear, Manager, Utilities Marketing Services
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management
APPROVED BY: _________________________________
Valerie O. Fong
Director of Utilities
City of Palo Alto Utilities
2010
Urban Water
Management Plan
June 2011
i
Table of Contents
List of Appendices ............................................................................. vi
List of Tables .....................................................................................vii
List of Figures .....................................................................................ix
List of Acronyms.................................................................................ix
Contact Sheet.....................................................................................1
Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption......................................2
Plan Structure ..........................................................................................................2
Plan Adoption ..........................................................................................................2
Public Participation..................................................................................................2
Agency Coordination................................................................................................4
Coordination Within the City................................................................................................... 4
Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 5
Section 2 – Service Area......................................................................9
Demographics..........................................................................................................9
Climate Characteristics ..........................................................................................10
Section 3 – System Supplies.............................................................. 12
Historical Background............................................................................................12
SFPUC Supply.........................................................................................................16
Description of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................16
Water System Improvement Program...................................................................................17
2009 Water Supply Agreement..............................................................................................19
Interim Supply Allocation.......................................................................................................20
BAWSCA and Its Role .............................................................................................20
Water Conservation Implementation Plan............................................................................21
Regional Coordination for Demand Management.................................................................22
Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy ...........................................................................22
ii
Groundwater..........................................................................................................23
Recent Analysis ......................................................................................................................24
Transfer or Exchange Opportunities......................................................................26
Water Recycling.....................................................................................................27
Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning...............................................................28
Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto..............................................................28
Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment.................................................................29
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) ....................................................29
Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses ...................................................................30
Disposal of Wastewater.........................................................................................................30
Recycled Water Currently Being Used...................................................................................31
Potential Uses of Recycled Water..........................................................................................32
Recycled Water Market Survey..............................................................................................32
Recycled Water Facility Plan..................................................................................................33
Encouraging Recycled Water Use..........................................................................................35
Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water...................................35
Recycled Water Optimization Plan ........................................................................................36
BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy............................................................37
RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan.........................................................................................37
Indirect Potable Reuse...........................................................................................................37
Desalinated Water.................................................................................................37
Section 4 – Water Demand............................................................... 39
Historical Water Usage ..........................................................................................39
Current Water Usage.............................................................................................40
Water Sales............................................................................................................41
Demand Projection Development..........................................................................................42
Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type....................................................................42
Sales to Other Agencies .........................................................................................................44
iii
Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use........................................................................44
Non‐Revenue Water ..............................................................................................................44
Total Water Use .....................................................................................................................45
Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use....................................................45
Water Conservation Bill of 2009............................................................................47
Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets....................................50
Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance..............................................................................50
Section 5 – Demand Management Measures.................................... 52
Measures to Comply with SBx7‐7 ..........................................................................52
Documenting Demand Management Measure Implementation...........................53
Methods Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Demand Management Measures.....54
Marketing of Demand Management Measures.....................................................56
Demand Management Measures ..........................................................................57
Demand Management Measure A ‐ Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐
Family Residential Customers................................................................................................58
Demand Management Measure B ‐ Residential Plumbing Retrofit......................................59
Demand Management Measure C ‐ System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair......60
Demand Management Measure D ‐ Metering with Commodity Rates for all New
Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections.................................................................61
Demand Management Measure E ‐ Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
................................................................................................................................................62
E‐1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers.........62
E‐2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates.............................63
E‐3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement...............................................................................64
E‐4. Residential Turf Replacement........................................................................................65
E‐5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades.................................................66
Demand Management Measure F – High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs...67
F‐1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives.................................................67
F‐2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives...................68
iv
Demand Management Measure G – Public Information Programs......................................69
Demand Management Measure H – School Education Programs ........................................70
Demand Management Measure I – Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional (CII) Accounts.....................................................................................................71
I‐1. Commercial Water Audits...............................................................................................71
I‐2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program .................................................................72
I‐3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program................................................................73
I‐4. CII High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation Program ...................................74
Demand Management Measure J – Conservation Pricing.....................................................75
Demand Management Measure K – Water Conservation Coordinator................................76
Demand Management Measure L – Water Waste Prohibition.............................................77
Demand Management Measure M ‐ Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement
Programs................................................................................................................................78
Demand Management Measure N – New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations.79
Demand Management Measure O – Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners.................80
Demand Management Measure P – Rainwater Harvesting Incentives.................................81
Demand Management Measure Q – Residential Graywater Reuse......................................82
Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability ................................................. 83
Water Supply Reliability.........................................................................................83
Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies.................................................84
Reliability of the Regional Water System...............................................................85
Water Supply – All Year Types ...............................................................................................86
Water Supply – Dry‐Year Types..............................................................................................86
Projected SFPUC System Supply Reliability ...........................................................................87
Impact of Recent SFPUC Actions on Dry Year Reliability of SFPUC Supplies.........................87
Reduction in Demand.............................................................................................87
Increase in Rationing..............................................................................................................88
Supplemental Supply .............................................................................................................88
Meeting the Level of Service Goal for Delivery Reliability.....................................................89
2018 Interim Supply Limitation..............................................................................................89
v
Climate Change ......................................................................................................................89
Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply................................................................91
Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan................................... 92
Background............................................................................................................92
Catastrophic Interruption of Supply.......................................................................92
Regional System Reliability....................................................................................................93
Local Distribution System Reliability......................................................................................96
Emergency Response Plan .....................................................................................................96
Water Shortage Contingency Analysis...................................................................98
Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management...............................................................98
Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan.................................................................99
Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning..............................................................101
Water Shortage Mitigation Options.....................................................................101
Supply Side Options .............................................................................................................102
Demand Side Options...........................................................................................................103
Stages of Action ...................................................................................................107
STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings..............................108
STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings...........................109
STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings...............................110
STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings...............................111
Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts ...........112
Impact on Expenditures.......................................................................................................112
Impact on Revenues.............................................................................................................112
Reduction Measuring Mechanism .......................................................................113
Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution...........................................114
Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions ................. 115
Supply and Demand Comparison.........................................................................115
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Resolution Adopting UWMP
Appendix B
Public Participation Notices
Appendix C
CUWCC Best Management Practices Reports
Appendix D
CUWCC BMP’s and Corresponding DMM’s
Appendix E
City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water Shortage Implementation Plan (w/
Attachments)
Appendix F
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance
Appendix G
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria
Appendix H
Water Shortage Contingency Use Restrictions
Appendix I
Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Calendar for Adoption................................................................................3
Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies...................................................8
Table 3: Population ‐ Current and Projected..........................................................10
Table 4: Climate .....................................................................................................10
Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources ............................................16
Table 6: Wastewater Treatment............................................................................29
Table 7: Wastewater Collected and Treated – MGD..............................................30
Table 8: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – MGD.......................................31
Table 9: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water ‐ Potential AFY..........................32
Table 10: Past, Current and Projected Water Sales (Before DMMs)......................41
Table 11: Recycled Water Use (AFY)......................................................................44
Table 12: Non‐Revenue Water...............................................................................45
Table 13: Total Water Use (AFY)............................................................................45
Table 14: Projected Lower Income Water Demands (AFY)....................................46
Table 15: Baseline daily per capita water use — 10 year Range............................49
Table 16: 2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 Performance Metrics (GPCD) ................................49
Table 17: DMM Water Savings Summary...............................................................56
Table 18: Residential Water Surveys......................................................................58
Table 19: Residential Plumbing Retrofit.................................................................59
Table 20: Landscape Survey Program ....................................................................62
Table 21: Weather‐Based (ET) Controller Rebates.................................................63
Table 22: Large Landscape Turf Replacement........................................................64
Table 23: Residential Turf Replacement ................................................................65
Table 24: Irrigation Hardware Rebate....................................................................66
Table 25: Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives..........................67
Table 26: Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
...............................................................................................................................68
Table 27: Public Information..................................................................................69
Table 28: Commercial Water Audits ......................................................................71
Table 29: Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program.........................................72
Table 30: Water Efficient Technologies Rebate.....................................................73
Table 31: Commercial High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation...........74
Table 32: Rebates for High Efficiency Toilets.........................................................78
viii
Table 33: Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners.............................................80
Table 34: Goals and Objectives of WSIP.................................................................85
Table 35: SFPUC System Water Availability – Year 2010 (AFY)..............................86
Table 36: Water Deliveries in SFPUC Service Area.................................................88
Table 37: Interties with other Agencies.................................................................96
Table 38: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water ...................99
Table 39: Palo Alto Share of Available Water – AFY.............................................101
Table 40: SFPUC System Supply and Demand Comparison..................................115
Table 41: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY) ..................................116
Table 42: SFPUC Water Supply Options for Years 2010 through 2030 (AFY).......116
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Water System Improvement Program....................................................18
Figure 2: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Facilities.........................25
Figure 3: Phase III Recycled Water Project.............................................................34
Figure 4: Historical Water Supplies – Actual and Forecast.....................................40
Figure 5: 2010 Water Use by Customer Class........................................................43
List of Acronyms
AF Acre Feet
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AF/Y Acre Feet per Year
BAWAC Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BCA Baseline Consumption Allowance
BMP Best Management Practices
CAFR City Audited Financial Report
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
ccf Centi Cubic Feet (hundred cubic feet)
CCSF City and County of San Francisco
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
COM Commercial
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
DHS Department of Health Services
DSM Demand Side Management
DMM Demand Management Measures
DSS Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Evapotranspiration
ETO Reference Evapotranspiration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FY Fiscal Year
x
gpm Gallons per minute
HET High Efficiency Toilets
ICI Industrial Commercial and Institutional
WIRP Integrated Resource Plan
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IT Information Technology
IWSAP Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan
MF Multi‐family
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OES Office of Emergency Services
RWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
RWS Regional Water System
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SF Single‐family
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFWD San Francisco Water Department
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TRC Total Resource Cost
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
UER Utilities Emergency Response
ULF Ultra Low Flow
ULFT Ultra Low Flow Toilet
URS United Research Services, Consultant Firm
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan
WPL West Pipeline
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WSMP Water Supply Master Plan
City of Palo Alto Utilities
2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Contact Sheet
Date plan submitted to the Department of Water Resources:
Name of persons preparing this plan:
Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
Phone:
(650) 329‐2214
(650) 329‐2417
Fax: (650) 326‐1507
E‐mail address:
Nicolas.Procos@CityofPaloAlto.org
Catherine.Elvert@CityofPaloAlto.org
Utility services provided by the City include: electric, natural gas, commercial fiber, refuse,
recycled water, storm drain, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal.
Is This Agency a Bureau of Reclamation Contractor? No
Is This Agency a State Water Project Contractor? No
Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption
Plan Structure
The City of Palo Alto (City) has not experienced significant changes in the water supply
distribution system and reliability since the preparation of the 2005 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) and has determined the 2005 UWMP provided sufficient guidance to meet the
City’s needs during the 2005 UWMP cycle. For the 2010 UWMP update, the City has updated
the 2005 UWMP and addressed any changes to the UWMP Act since 2005 as outlined in Section
B of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook.
Plan Adoption
The City began preparing this update of its Urban Water Management Plan in winter 2010. The
updated plan will be considered by City Council before June 30, 2011 and submitted to the
California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of Council adoption. This plan
includes all information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division
6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning) as well as requirements of the California
Water Code Division 6, Part 2.55 (Water Conservation Bill of 2009).
Public Participation
The City actively encourages community participation in its urban water management planning
efforts. The City held a public participation meeting on March 24, 2011 to seek input on the
2010 UWMP in addition to public hearings before the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and
City Council prior to adoption. An UWMP webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UWMP) was
created to educate the public about the UWMP process, provide outreach for public meetings
and opportunities to participate, as well as to make available background materials on the
City’s urban water management planning activities.
Table 1: Calendar for Adoption
Date Meeting/Activity Topic
Review and Discussion on UWMP
March 24, 2011
Public Meeting; 7 to 9 p.m. Palo Alto
Art Center Auditorium Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7
Reduction Targets
May 4, 2011 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Review and Recommendation on
UWMP
Newspaper (Council meeting) on
UWMP May 30, 2011 Published Notice of Public Hearing Newspaper (Council meeting) on
SBx7‐7 Reductions
Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7
Reduction Targets June 13, 2011 City Council
Review and Adoption of UWMP
July 12, 2011 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Copy to DWR and Stakeholder
Agencies
July 12, 2011 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Available to the Public
Appendix B contains the public participation notices. The Notices will be added to the Final
Draft UWMP that will be presented to Council for approval.
The City’s Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) provides advice to the City Council on acquisition
and development of electric, gas and water resources; joint action projects with other public or
private entities which involve electric, gas or water resources; wastewater collection and fiber
optic issues; environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, as well as
conservation and demand management. The UAC meets once per month and reviews the
activities of the various utility services. One of the primary tasks of the UAC is to assist with the
review and development of long‐term plans for the City’s utilities. The UAC meetings are open
to the public and agendas are posted for public review prior to each meeting. The draft
schedule for approval of the 2010 UWMP provides the opportunity for the UAC to review and
comment on the Draft UWMP prior to submittal to the City Council for final approval.
In addition to the review of the UWMP, the UAC has been very active in the review of several
other water supply and water management documents. Since the adoption of the 2005
UWMP, this review during public meetings has included discussion and presentations on the
following:
Annual Public Benefits Plan Update (January 2005)
Recycled Water Market Survey Proposal (August 2005)
Recycled Water Market Survey Results (October 2006)
Recycled Water Facility Plan ( June 2008)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Water System Improvement Program
(2005‐2009)
Stanford Medical Center Water Supply Assessment (March 2009)
Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Supply Contract with the City and County
of San Francisco (May 2009)
Updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (January 2010)
Report on Ways to Reduce Potable Water Use in Palo Alto 20% by 2020 (April 2010)
Recommendation to Integrate Water Efficient Landscape, Recycled Water, and Energy
Efficiency Ordinances into the California Green Building Code (September 2010)
Agency Coordination
Law
California Water Code section 106201 (a) Every urban water supplier shall
prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in
Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
(d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirement of this
part by participation in area wide regional, watershed, or basis wide urban
water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs
and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use.
(2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its
plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water
suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and
relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
(f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water
management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources
and minimize the need to import water from other regions.
Coordination Within the City
Many members of City staff met to coordinate development of this plan, including
representatives from all divisions of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) and other
City departments, including the Planning and Community Environment Department; the City
Manager’s Office; the City Attorney’s Office; and the Public Works Department (Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant). The UWMP is coordinated with other City planning and
policy level documents to ensure the water policy direction in the UWMP informs future
decisions within the City of Palo Alto, including the Urban Forest Master Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
1 Unless noted, all statutory references herein are to the California Water Code.
Since completion of the 2005 UWMP, CPAU has completed several important water supply and
planning milestones, including:
Recycled Water Facility Plan (March 2009) – This study defined the recycled water
alternatives and identified a recommended project alignment. The study also provided
a funding strategy and an implementation plan for the recommended project.
City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply & Storage Project Final Environmental
Impact Report (February 2007) – The City certified the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to locate a site and construct a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir and
pump station in Palo Alto to meet emergency water supply and storage needs. In
addition to this water reservoir, the project includes the siting and construction of
several emergency supply wells and the upgrade of five existing wells and the existing
Mayfield Pump Station. The City is currently in the construction phase for the project.
Water Supply Assessment for the Stanford University Medical Center (March 2009) –
SB 610 requires a nexus between regional land use planning and an assessment of
whether water supplies are sufficient to serve demand generated by a projection. The
City performed a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the project during the EIR process
and used information from the 2005 UWMP to guide normal and dry year supply
assessment.
Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Supply Contract (May 2009) – The Palo
Alto City Council approved the new Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales
Contract with the City and County of San Francisco. The new contract specifies the
contractual relationship with the City’s primary wholesale water supplier, the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and addresses the terms of service for the City.
The new contract has a 25 year term and expires in 2034.
The Water Shortage Implementation Plan (January 2010) – The Palo Alto City Council
approved a new Water Shortage Implementation plan that allocates water from the
SFPUC regional system between the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) members.
The completion of the plans and agreements listed above required the cooperation of all
divisions within the CPAU and several other departments within the City. Data and information
from these reports was used in this document.
Interagency Coordination
The City is an active member of the California water community and is particularly active in the
following organizations:
The City is a very active member of the BAWSCA. The BAWSCA members, including the
City, receive water from the City and County of San Francisco through a contract that is
administered by the SFPUC.
The City is represented on the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Commission,
the SCVWD Water Retailers Group, the SCVWD Recycled Water Subcommittee, and the
SCVWD Water Conservation Subcommittee group.
The City has actively participated on several initiatives in relation to the SFPUC,
including:
Preparation of the SFPUC’s Program EIR for its Water System Improvement
Program (WSIP)
The Interim Supply limitation established by the SFPUC during adoption of
the WSIP to limit deliveries from the regional system until 2018.
Through BAWSCA, the City is represented in the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition
(BAWAC), a group of the seven largest water agencies in the Bay Area. BAWAC was
established to develop regional water planning objectives, coordinate projects and
programs that would meet the regional objectives to improve water supply reliability
and water quality, and document, coordinate and communicate existing and planned
programs and activities being implemented in the Bay Area region in the areas of water
use efficiency and water treatment.
The City has been a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban
Water Conservation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council since 1992.
The City is a member of the Bay Area Water Conservation Coordinators group, a
consortium of water conservation professionals formed to discuss and share policy and
program implementation strategies and research.
The City is a member of the WateReuse Association, an organization of governmental,
non‐profit and private sector entities working together to encourage increased recycled
water use in California.
The City is a member of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), through which
water and power agencies strive to evaluate and promote water and energy efficient
appliances and technologies.
The City is a member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The City is a Partner in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense
program, which promotes water efficient products and assists utilities in marketing its
programs for water use efficiency.
The City Council adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land
Use on October 17, 2005.2 These principles were developed by the Local Government
Commission, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to create healthy, walkable,
and resource‐efficient communities.
The City continually coordinates water‐planning activities with neighboring communities and
water agencies.
2 CMR 367:05
The Water Supply Master Plan ‐ One early example of interagency coordination and planning
was the development of the Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP). From 1996 through 1999, the
BAWSCA agencies and the SFPUC worked cooperatively to develop a WSMP. A representative
from Palo Alto was on the steering committee for this project. The WSMP is intended to
address the future water supply needs of the water agencies and 2.3 million people, who are
served via the SFPUC water system. On April 25, 2000 the SFPUC formally adopted the WSMP
including the implementation schedule for identified, selected projects.
Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) ‐ The City has evaluated all its water supply
alternatives in an effort to determine what long‐term direction the City should take for water
resource planning. In 2000, this effort resulted in the publication of a document describing in
detail all the identified alternatives. Besides BAWSCA, the agencies that have received this
document include: the City of Mountain View, Alameda County Water District, Stanford
University, the City of San Jose, California Water Company, the City of Redwood City, the City of
Daly City, the Purissima Hills Water District, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Milpitas and the
City of Sunnyvale. In addition, the City continuously interacts with the 26 other BAWSCA
agencies in the development of water efficiency programs to be implemented regionally, as
well as the regional evaluation of water supply alternatives.
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan – The Association of Bay Area Government
(ABAG) convened a broad‐based group of stakeholders to develop an Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Bay Area. The Bay Area IRWMP will facilitate
regional cooperation on issues of water supply, quality and reliability, water recycling and
conservation, stormwater and flood water management, wetlands and habitat restoration and
creation, recreation and access. The plan was finalized in November 2006.
The City was involved in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP on the water supply and
reliability areas through BAWSCA’s representation in BAWAC. In addition, the City also
coordinates water recycling and wastewater for the IRWMP implementation through the City’s
membership in the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).
BAWSCA Long Term Water Reliable Water Supply Strategy ‐ The BAWSCA agencies have
identified a need for normal and dry year supplies to meet future demands. The study will
identify cost‐effective regional and local projects that will meet individual BAWSCA member
needs. At this time, the City has submitted two local and regional projects for consideration in
the study: The Phase III recycled water project to serve the Stanford Research Park and a broad
regional recycled water program to distribute recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water
Quality Control Plant.
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan ‐ Palo Alto’s Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has been in operation since 1934 and now serves the six
communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and the movement to full sustainability will
require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes. The Long Range Facilities Plan will map
out these changes and focus on biosolids treatment and disposal, waste‐to‐energy
technologies, energy use, major pipeline repairs, recycled water treatment, carbon footprint
impacts, and the best alternatives for rehabilitation, replacement or improvement.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan ‐ The City is
participating with other stakeholders in the preparation of a Master Plan to address long range
water supply and reliability needs in Santa Clara County. The Water Master Plan will include an
implementation program that schedules projects based on finances, risk, and water supply and
infrastructure needs.
The City coordinated the 2010 update of the Urban Water Management Plan with the following
agencies:
Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies
AGENCIES
Participated
in Plan
development
Sent notice
of Plan
preparation
Commented
on the draft
Attended
public
meetings
Contacted
for
assistance
Received
copy of
draft
Sent notice
of public
hearing
Not involved
/ No
information
SFPUC X X X
BAWSCA X X X
SCVWD X X X
City of East Palo
Alto
X X
City of
Mountain View
X X
City of Menlo
Park
X X
Purissima Hills X X
City of Redwood
City
X X
Stanford
University
X X
All other
BAWSCA
agencies
X
County of Santa
Clara
X X
Section 2 – Service Area
Law
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all
of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected
population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's
water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be
based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population
projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in
five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available….
Demographics
Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County approximately 35 miles south of the City of
San Francisco. The City’s population in 2010 was approximately 64,4033. The City is roughly 26
square miles in area and is a part of the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The City is one of
the area's most desirable residential communities with approximately 28,2914 housing units.
The City’s desirability is partly due to the excellent public schools, comprehensive municipal
services, shopping, restaurants and the community's aesthetics.
The City is considered the birthplace of the high technology industry and the Silicon Valley.
Located directly adjacent to the City is Stanford University, which attracts major corporations
from around the world. The City's 630‐acre Stanford Research Park includes among its tenants
such prestigious and innovative high‐tech leaders as Hewlett‐Packard, Lockheed, Varian, Tesla
Motors, TIBCO and Genencor. The City has 27.3 million square feet of commercial and
industrial floor‐space, 36 parks and preserves (comprising 157 acres of urban parks and 3,744
acres of open space), tennis courts (51), community centers (4), theaters (3), swimming pools
(1), nature centers (3), athletic centers (4), a golf course, an art center, and a junior museum
and zoo (2010)5.
Table 3 shows the population and employment projections for the City from 2010 to 2030
based on actual 2010 Census data and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2009
projections. The City relied on ABAG population and employment projections for the 2005
UWMP and several recent water supply and demand forecasts and continues to primarily rely
on ABAG projections in this plan6. According to these projections, total expected growth in
3 2010 Census
4 City of Palo Alto 2009‐2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
5 City of Palo Alto 2009‐2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
6 The City is in the process of updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan and will publish revised population and
population from 2010 to 2035 is about 30.4 %, or 1.22% per year on average. From 2001 to
2005, the City experienced significant “dot com” related job losses that has resulted in lower
than anticipated employment numbers. In addition, the recent economic slowdown may result
in further losses, though there is no data available on the extent of any impact at this time. The
job situation is expected to improve albeit at a modest rate. Total growth in employment from
2010 to 2035 is expected to be 7.43%, or 0.30% per year on average.
Table 3: Population ‐ Current and Projected
20107 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Service Area Population 64,403 66,200 70,400 73,400 80,400 84,000
Five year ‐ Percent increase 2.79% 6.34% 4.26% 9.54% 4.48%
Total Employment 76,480 76,740 77,010 78,550 80,320 82,160
Five year ‐ Percent increase 0.34% 0.35% 2.00% 2.25% 2.29%
Climate Characteristics
The City enjoys a mild climate surrounded by the San Francisco Bay on the east, and coastal
mountains on the west. The monthly average temperature, rainfall and ETo (Reference
Evapotranspiration) for the area are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Climate
Standard Monthly
Average ETO 8
Average
Rainfall
(inches) 9 Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) 10
Jan 1.4 3.2 48.0
Feb 1.9 2.9 51.3
Mar 3.5 2.2 53.6
employment data in late 2011 or early 2012. In the interim, the City’s Planning Dept. has issued preliminary
population and employment forecasts (City Manager’s Report 152:10,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18918). The forecast provides a mid‐growth
and high‐growth population projection, with the high growth scenario based on ABAG 2009. In consideration of
the complexities and challenges of forecasting future water use, the 2010 UWMP demand projections are based on
ABAG 2009 projections. The City has adjusted the ABAG 2009 forecasts to account for the Census 2010 results.
7 The City is using 2010 population data from the recent Census. At the time of publication of this document, the
Census employment results were not available.
8 Average ETO data for closest active station (San Jose) reported by CIMIS website
http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp
9 Average rainfall and temperature data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
10 Average temperature data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
Table 4: Climate
Standard Monthly
Average ETO 8
Average
Rainfall
(inches) 9 Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) 10
Apr 5.0 1.0 56.6
May 5.9 0.4 60.7
June 6.7 0.1 65.0
July 7.1 0.0 66.5
Aug 6.3 0.1 66.6
Sept 4.8 0.2 65.5
Oct 3.6 0.7 60.6
Nov 1.8 1.8 53.5
Dec 1.4 2.7 48.0
Section 3 – System Supplies
Law
10631. (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and
planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five year
increments described in subdivision (a)…..
Historical Background
The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated.
Local water companies were bought out at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the
voters of the 750‐person community. These private water companies operated one or more
shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The City grew and the well system expanded until
nine wells were in operation in 1932.
In December 1937, the City signed a 20‐year contract with the City and County of San Francisco,
administered by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), for water deliveries from the
newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water
deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well production declined to less than
half of the total citywide water demand.
A 1950 engineering report noted, "the capricious alternation of well waters and the SFWD
water . . . has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically impossible."
However, groundwater production increased in the 1950s, leading to lower groundwater tables
and water quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers
determined that the City should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the SFWD. A
20‐year contract was signed with San Francisco, and the City’s wells were placed in a standby
condition. The SFWD later became known as the SFPUC. Since 1962 (except for some very
short periods) the City’s entire supply of potable water has come from the SFPUC.
BAWSCA coordinates most of the collective activities of the SFPUC’s suburban customers.
BAWSCA comprises SFPUC’s 26 suburban customers. The City largely works through BAWSCA
to manage its SFPUC contract and to interact with the SFPUC.
In 1993, the City completed a water Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). This IRP was completed
because the City was facing a decision regarding participation in a recycled water project. In
the 1993 IRP, the City calculated the value of recycled water for water supply. At that time, the
City decided not to participate in the recycled water project because the costs exceeded the
benefits of the project.
In 1999, the City began to prepare a new Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP). As a first
step, staff completed a high level overview of each of the City’s water resource options and
helped identify the most promising alternatives to be further analyzed in subsequent phases.
The second phase in the WIRP process was the development and evaluation of water supply
portfolios so policy makers can determine the proper balance between cost, quality, reliability,
and environmental factors. At the conclusion of the second phase of the WIRP in 2003, several
pieces of missing information were identified that needed to be further developed in order to
further analyze the City’s water resource options and alternatives.
The WIRP work has been coordinated with infrastructure work by the City to increase the
distribution system reliability. Under a contract with the City, Carollo Engineers completed
several studies of the water distribution system. These studies are discussed in Section 3,
“System Supplies,” under the heading “Groundwater.”
The City and other Santa Clara County water retailers coordinated with the SCVWD to examine
extending the SCVWD West Pipeline (WPL) that currently ends at Miramonte Road and Foothills
Expressway to a point in Palo Alto to serve the City and other neighboring water agencies. In
addition, the study examined creating an intertie between the WPL and the SFPUC’s Bay
Division Pipelines at Page Mill Road. The SCVWD West Pipeline Conceptual Evaluation,
completed in March 2003, concluded that the conceptual projects were constructible, but that
no decisions could be made until SCVWD concluded additional studies. These ongoing studies
include the SCVWD project to evaluate its system reliability, asset management program, and
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Project. These studies, completed in the fall of 2004,
concluded that extending the WPL to serve the City could not be justified from a county‐wide
reliability aspect when evaluated against more cost‐effective alternatives.
The information obtained from the studies completed on the groundwater and SCVWD’s
conceptual study on the WPL Extension was used to characterize the supply options examined
in the WIRP.
In mid‐2003, the WIRP concluded, based on available information, that supplies from the SFPUC
are adequate in normal years, but additional supplies are needed in drought years to avoid
shortages. Additionally, the WIRP contained a recommendation not to seek additional supplies
for use on a continuous basis unless there is another benefit that can be identified. As a result,
the City did not pursue a connection to the SCVWD’s treated water line for ongoing water
needs nor evaluate further the use the wells on a continuous basis. The WIRP noted that
expanded use of water efficiency programs and recycled water might be worthwhile for the
environmental benefits and to reduce the drought‐time deficit.
Based on the WIRP analysis, the City Council adopted a set of WIRP guidelines in December
2003. The WIRP guidelines include:
1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies: With respect to the City’s primary water supply
source, the SFPUC, continue to actively participate in the BAWSCA to assist in achieving
BAWSCA’s stated goal: “A reliable supply of water, with high quality, and at a fair price.”
2. Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the SCVWD: Work with SCVWD
and the SFPUC to pursue the extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline to an
interconnection with the SFPUC Bay Division Pipelines 3&4. Continue to reevaluate the
attractiveness of a connection to an extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline.
3. Actively participate in development of cost‐effective regional recycled water plans: Re‐
initiate discussions with the owners of the Palo Alto RWQCP on recycled water
development. In concert with the RWQCP owners, conduct a new feasibility study for
recycled water development. Since the feasibility of a recycled water system depends
upon sufficient end‐user interest, determine how much water Stanford University and
the Stanford Research Park would take.
4. Focus on water DSM programs to comply with BMPs: Continue implementation of
water efficiency programs with the primary focus to achieve compliance with the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation
Council.
5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts:
Review, retain, and prioritize CPAU’s emergency water conservation measures that
would be put into place in a drought emergency.
6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions: Using
groundwater on a continuous basis does not appear to be attractive at this time due to
the availability of adequate, high quality supplies from the SFPUC in normal years.
However, SFPUC supplies are not adequate in drought years and circumstances could
change in the future such that groundwater supplies could become an attractive, cost‐
effective option. Examples of changing circumstances could be that the amount of
water available from the SFPUC system is reduced due to regulatory or other actions.
CPAU should retain the option of using groundwater in amounts that would not result in
land surface subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or migration of contaminated plumes.
7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource
portfolio: Seek feedback from all classes of water customers on the question of
whether to use groundwater during drought to improve drought year supply reliability.
At the same time, seek feedback on the appropriate level of water treatment for
groundwater if it is to be used during drought. Survey all classes of water customers to
determine their preferences as to the appropriate balance between cost, quality,
reliability, and environmental impact.
Since the major conclusion reached in the WIRP was that SFPUC supplies are adequate except
in drought years, the focus turned to the options to reduce the supply deficit during droughts.
These options include using groundwater, connecting to the SCVWD’s treated water pipeline,
developing recycled water, and expanding water efficiency programs. The goal was to find the
proper balance between the key factors of cost, availability in a drought, water quality, and
environmental impacts in determining the best portfolio for the community.
Following Council’s adoption of the WIRP Guidelines, and to gain insight into the question of
whether to use groundwater as supplemental supply in droughts, the City surveyed its
residential customers. Respondents were asked to rank three options for water supply in a
drought:
A. Blend Groundwater – Blend the groundwater with water from SFPUC in droughts.
Water customers would still need to cut back water usage by 10% in droughts.
B. No Groundwater – Use no groundwater during droughts. Instead, community is
subjected to larger water usage cutbacks in droughts (20% cutback).
C. Treat Groundwater – Highly treat the groundwater (reverse osmosis treatment) before
introducing it into distribution system. Water customers would still need to cut back
water usage by 10% in droughts.
Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater),
but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. Based on the survey, any of the
three options would probably be accepted by the City’s water customers under drought
conditions.
Based on the WIRP and the results of the community survey, staff made the following
conclusions and recommendations in June 2004:
1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This
option is simply too expensive, both in capital and in operating costs.
2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use groundwater as a supplemental
drought time supply while maintaining good water quality.
3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process for selecting
any new emergency well sites before developing a recommendation on whether to
use groundwater in droughts. In the selection process for new well sites, the costs
for blending with SFPUC water in droughts should be considered. The least
expensive location is a well at El Camino Park due to its proximity to an SFPUC
turnout.
4. Actively participate in the development of long‐term drought supply plans with
SFPUC and BAWSCA.
5. Continue in the efforts identified in the Council‐approved WIRP Guidelines:
a. Evaluate a range of demand‐side management (DSM) options for their ability to
reduce long‐term water demands;
b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water; and
c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of
droughts.
At this time, no decision has been made regarding whether or not to use groundwater as a
supplemental supply in droughts, though the City is proceeding with the Emergency Water
Supply and Storage project which will provide the City the flexibility to rely on groundwater
during a drought if necessary.
Table 5 below shows the current and planned water supply sources for the City for normal
years.
Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources
Water Supply Sources in AFY 2010
(actual) 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC11 12,263 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Local Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0
Local Surface Water 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled Water 802 850 850 850 850
Transfers in or out 0 0 0 0 0
Exchanges in or out 0 0 0 0 0
Desalination 0 0 0 0 0
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total 13,065 15,103 15,007 15,203 15,821
SFPUC Supply
Description of SFPUC Regional Water System
Palo Alto receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System
(RWS), operated by the SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered
through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC
from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
The amount of imported water available to the SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is
constrained by hydrology, physical facilities and the institutional limitations that allocate the
water supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on
reservoir storage to ensure water supply availability in dry years.
The SFPUC serves its retail and wholesale water demands with an integrated operation of local
Bay Area water production and imported water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. In practice,
the local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff.
11 Data from end use model, except for 2010 actual usage data, as indicated.
Water System Improvement Program
In order to enhance the ability of the RWS to meet identified level of service goals for water
quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply, the SFPUC has undertaken the
WSIP, which was approved October 31, 2008. The WSIP will deliver capital improvements
aimed at enhancing the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high
quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner.
Many of the water supply and reliability projects evaluated in the WSIP were originally put forth
in the SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan (2000).
A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act for the WSIP. The PEIR, certified in 2008, analyzed the broad
environmental effects of the projects in the WSIP at a program level and the water supply
impacts of various alternative supplies at a project level. Individual WSIP projects are also
undergoing individual project specific environmental review as required.
The approved WSIP includes full implementation of all proposed WSIP facility improvement
projects to insure that the public health, seismic safety and delivery reliability goals were
achieved as soon as possible.
As of July 1, 2010, the overall WSIP was 27% complete while the planning and design work was
more than 90% complete. The WSIP is scheduled to be completed in December 2015 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Water System Improvement Program58
Source: SFPUC
58 For more information on individual WSIP projects, please visit the SFPUC website at www.sfwater.org.
2009 Water Supply Agreement
The relationship between San Francisco and its wholesale customers is largely defined by the
Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale
Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County entered into in July
2009. The new Water Supply Agreement (WSA) replaced the Settlement Agreement and
Master Water Sales Contract that expired in June 2009. The WSA addresses the rate‐making
methodology used by SFPUC in setting wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers in
addition to addressing water supply and water shortages for the system. The WSA has a 25‐
year term.
In terms of water supply, the WSA provides for a “Supply Assurance” to the SFPUC’s wholesale
customers of 184 million gallons per day (MGD, expressed on an annual average basis), subject
to reduction, to the extent and for the period made necessary by reason of water shortage, due
to drought, emergencies, or by malfunctioning or rehabilitation of the regional water system.
The WSA does not guarantee that San Francisco will meet peak daily or hourly customer
demands when their annual usage exceeds the Supply Assurance. The SFPUC’s wholesale
customers have agreed to the allocation of the 184 MGD Supply Assurance among themselves,
with each entity’s share of the Supply Assurance, or Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), set forth
on Attachment C to the WSA. Palo Alto’s ISG is 17.07 MGD (or approximately 19,118 acre feet
per year). The Supply Assurance survives termination or expiration of the WSA and Palo Alto’s
Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco.
The Water Shortage Allocation Plan between the SFPUC and its wholesale customers, adopted
as part of the WSA in July 2009, addresses shortages of up to 20% of system‐wide use. The Tier
1 Shortage Plan allocates water from the RWS between San Francisco Retail and the wholesale
customers during system‐wide shortages of 20% or less. The WSA also includes a Tier 2
Shortage Plan, which would allocate the available water from the SFPUC system among the
wholesale customers.
In August 2010, the BAWSCA agencies reached agreement on a new Tier 2 Shortage Plan to
recommend to their respective governing bodies. On February 7th, 2011, the Palo Alto City
Council approved the new Tier 2 Water Shortage Implementation Plan13 (Appendix E). As of
early April 2011, all the BAWSCA agencies have approved the new Tier 2 plan. The new Tier 2
plan provides the framework for allocating the wholesale Tier 1 water allocation between the
different BAWSCA agencies. The new Tier 2 Water Shortage Implementation Plan is in effect
until 2018.
13 City of Palo Alto Staff Report, Drought Implementation Plan, ID # 1308
Interim Supply Allocation
When it adopted the WSIP and certified the PEIR on October 30, 2008, the SFPUC approved a
water delivery limitation from the SFPUC system of 265 MGD until 2018. This 265 MGD Interim
Supply Limitation (ISL) for the system allocated 184 MGD to the BAWSCA agencies and 81 MGD
to San Francisco. The ISL does not impact the seismic, public health and deliverability level of
service goals that were identified in the WSIP. The intent of the ISL was to establish an interim
water supply planning horizon that defers decisions on long term water supply issues until after
2018, when more current information will be available. The penalty mechanism in the ISL,
which provides for a substantial “Environmental Enhancement Surcharge,” is only triggered if
the SFPUC and the BAWSCA agencies collectively exceed the 265 MGD limitation.
In December 2010, the SFPUC finalized the distribution of the 184 MGD BAWSCA ISL allocation
to the individual BAWSCA members. Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation (ISA) is 14.70 MGD.
During the pending FY 2012 rate setting process, the SFPUC will finalize the rates that will be
charged to those agencies that exceed their ISA if the 265 MGD limitation is exceeded. Section
4 of this 2010 UWMP includes updated demand projections. Based on these projections, the
City does not anticipate exceeding the 14.70 MGD ISA during the ISL period ending in 2018.
The ISA is distinct from the ISG. The ISG is a perpetual entitlement for water delivered from the
SFPUC system that survives the expiration of the current water delivery contract. The ISA is an
interim water delivery limitation intended to accomplish the goals outlined in the adopted
WSIP, and it automatically expires in 2018 (see SFPUC Resolution 10‐0213, adopted
12/14/2010).
BAWSCA and Its Role
BAWSCA was created on May 27, 2003 to represent the interests of 26 cities and water
districts, and two private utilities, in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that
purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco Regional Water System.
BAWSCA directly represents the needs of the cities, water districts and private utilities that
depend on the regional water system. BAWSCA provides these customers with an ability to
work with SFPUC on an equal basis to ensure reliable operation of the regional system and
collectively and efficiently meet local responsibilities.
BAWSCA has the mandate to coordinate water conservation, supply and recycling activities for
its agencies; acquire water and make it available to other agencies on a wholesale basis; finance
projects, including improvements to the regional water system; and build facilities jointly with
other local public agencies or on its own to carry out the agency’s purposes.
Compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act is within the jurisdiction of each
agency that delivers water to its customers. In this instance the responsibility for completing an
UWMP lies with the individual BAWSCA member agencies. BAWSCA’s role in the development
of the 2010 UWMP updates is to work closely with its member agencies and the SFPUC to
maintain consistency between the multiple documents being developed and to ensure overall
consistency with the WSIP and the associated environmental documents.
As a member of BAWSCA, the City is formally represented on the BAWSCA Board of Directors
on matters involving decision‐making, policy setting and issues of interest to the BAWSCA
members. On the staff level, the City participates on several advisory and policy committees,
including the Water Quality Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff also
represents the City with the other BAWSCA members on other issues that may arise from time
to time.
Water Conservation Implementation Plan
In September 2009, BAWSCA completed the Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP).
The goal of the WCIP is to develop an implementation plan for BAWSCA and its member
agencies to attain the water efficiency goals that the agencies committed to in 2004 as part of
the PEIR for the WSIP. At that time, over 32 water conservation measures were evaluated. The
WCIP’s goal was expanded to include identification of how BAWSCA member agencies could
use water conservation as a way to continue to provide reliable water supplies to their
customers through 2018 given the SFPUC’s 265 MGD Interim Supply Limitation.
Based on the WCIP development and analysis process, BAWSCA and its member agencies
identified five additional water conservation measures, which, if implemented fully throughout
the BAWSCA service area, could potentially save an additional 8.4 MGD by 2018 and 12.5 MGD
by 2030. The demand projections for the BAWSCA member agencies, as transmitted to the
SFPUC on June 30, 2010, indicate that collective purchases from the SFPUC will stay below 184
MGD through 2018 as a result of revised water demand projections, the identified water
conservation savings, and other actions.
The City actively manages its conservation program to adjust to customer needs and provide a
mechanism for the utility to achieve the greatest water savings possible at the lowest cost. The
City has made several adjustments to the programs that were identified in 2004 and the 5 new
measures that were identified in the WCIP. For example, starting in FY 2011, the City has
reduced the emphasis on high efficiency toilet and washing machine rebates in favor of several
new measures that will achieve substantially the same level of savings. Some of these
programs focus on outdoor water savings while others incentivize innovative water efficiency
projects in the community. The new measures are discussed in more detail in Section 5 –
Demand Management Measures.
Regional Coordination for Demand Management
BAWSCA and its member agencies look for opportunities to work with other water agencies
including the SFPUC and the SCVWD, and leverage available resources to implement water use
efficiency projects. For example, in 2005, BAWSCA and the SFPUC entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) regarding the administration of a Spray Valve Installation Program.
Through this MOU, BAWSCA and the SFPUC worked cooperatively to offer and coordinate the
installation of water conserving spray valves to food service providers throughout the BAWSCA
service area. In addition, BAWSCA participates in the Bay Area Efficient Clothes Washer Rebate
Program, which is a residential rebate program offered by all of the major Bay Area water
utilities. Through participation in this program, BAWSCA and its participating member agencies
were the recipients of $187,500 in Proposition 50 grant funds, which became available in Fiscal
Year 2007.
More recently, as part of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, BAWSCA
and other major Bay Area water utilities, including the SCVWD submitted a Proposition 84
Implementation Grant Proposal in January 2011 to support regional water conservation efforts
that offer drought relief and long‐term water savings. The proposed project includes a package
of water conservation programs to improve water use efficiency throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area. The project provides direct funding, financial incentives (rebates), and/or subsidies
for the implementation of programs that achieve reduced water demand, by all classes of
water users: residential, and commercial, industrial and institutional. Four specific programs
were selected for the project because they were determined to provide the most quantifiable
and sustainable water savings, including: 1.) Water‐Efficient Landscape Rebates, Training and
Irrigation Calculator, 2.) High‐Efficiency Toilet/Urinal Direct Install and/or Rebates, 3.) High‐
Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates, and 4.) Efficient Irrigation Equipment Rebates.
The SCVWD is the primary wholesale water agency in Santa Clara County. Since Palo Alto is
located in Santa Clara County, CPAU partners with the SCVWD for conservation program
implementation and does not participate in the programs offered by BAWSCA at this time.
CPAU and SCVWD mutually benefit from a cost‐sharing agreement for administration of
residential and commercial conservation programs in Palo Alto. BAWSCA and its member
agencies will continue to look for ways to partner with each other and the other Bay Area water
utilities, as appropriate, to develop regional water conservation efforts that extend beyond
local interests to examine costs, benefits and other related issues on a system‐wide level. The
goal is to maximize the efficient use of water regionally by capitalizing on variations in local
conditions and economies of scale.
Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
BAWSCA’s water management objective is to ensure that a reliable, high quality supply of
water is available where and when people within the BAWSCA service area need it. A reliable
supply of water is required to support the health, safety, employment, and economic
opportunities of the existing and expected future residents in the BAWSCA service area and to
supply water to the agencies, businesses, and organizations that serve those communities.
BAWSCA is developing the Long‐Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy) to meet the
projected water needs of its member agencies and their customers through 2035 and to
increase their water supply reliability under normal and drought conditions.
The Strategy is proceeding in three phases. Phase I was completed in 2010 and defined the
magnitude of the water supply issue and the scope of work for the Strategy. Phase II of the
Strategy is currently under development and will result in a refined estimate of when, where,
and how much additional supply reliability and new water supplies are needed throughout the
BAWSCA service area through 2035, as well as a detailed analysis of the water supply
management projects, and the development of the Strategy implementation plan. Phase II will
be complete by 2013. Phase III will include the implementation of specific water supply
management projects. Depending on cost‐effectiveness, as well as other considerations, the
projects may be implemented by a single member agency, by a collection of the member
agencies, or by BAWSCA in an appropriate timeframe to meet the identified needs. Project
implementation may begin as early as 2013 and will continue throughout the Strategy planning
horizon, in coordination with the timing and magnitude of the supply need.
The development and implementation of the Strategy will be coordinated with the BAWCSA
member agencies and will be adaptively managed to ensure that the goals of the Strategy, i.e.,
increased normal and drought year reliability, are efficiently and cost‐effectively being met.
The City is participating in the Strategy and has submitted several potential projects for review.
The City anticipates these projects will be evaluated during subsequent project phases, but also
as part of several other regional efforts that are simultaneously underway. These efforts
include the Palo Alto RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan and the SCVWD Water Supply and
Infrastructure Master Plan. The City is actively participating on all of these efforts in
conjunction with the BAWSCA study.
Groundwater
The City is located in Santa Clara County. SCVWD is the groundwater management agency in
Santa Clara County as authorized by the California legislature under the SCVWD Act, California
Water Code Appendix, Chapter 6014. Groundwater conditions throughout the County are
generally very good, as SCVWD efforts to prevent groundwater basin overdraft, curb land
surface subsidence, and protect water quality have been largely successful. Groundwater
elevations have generally recovered from overdraft conditions throughout the basin, inelastic
land subsidence has been curtailed, and groundwater quality supports beneficial uses. The
groundwater basin is not adjudicated.
14 SCVWD Groundwater Management Plan, July 2001.
The City’s existing water well system consists of five wells (Hale, Rinconada, Peers Park,
Fernando, and Matadero) with a combined total rated capacity of 4,300 gpm. These wells were
constructed in the mid‐1950s and were operated continuously until 1962. In 1988, the wells
were operated to provide supplemental supplies as SFPUC implemented mandatory rationing.
Two of the wells were operated for about a month and a half in 1991 when it appeared that the
City was facing a severe (45%) cutback requirement. Besides normal annual operational
testing, the wells have not been used since 1991.
From 1999 to 2003, the City completed numerous studies that provided significant analysis of
City‐owned wells and the local distribution system. The analysis is discussed in detail in the
2005 UWMP. The results of the studies provided a significant amount of information regarding
the costs and operational issues of wells for emergency use, drought‐only supply and full‐time
operation.
Recent Analysis
Since the publication of the 2005 UWMP, the City completed the environmental review and
permitting process for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The project consists
of the repair and rehabilitation of the five existing wells, construction of three new wells,
potentially equipping one well for use as a supplemental water supply, construction of a new
2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and associated pump station, and other upgrades to the
system (Figure 2). The groundwater quality of the City’s wells is considered fair to good quality,
though significantly less desirable in comparison to the imported SFPUC supply. The
groundwater is approximately six times higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness. The
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s primary goal is to correct the deficiency in the
City’s emergency water supply. The project would support a minimum of eight hours of normal
water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design
fire duration level. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water
supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet per year), and would be capable of
providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system.
The proposed project would provide up to 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million
gallons (MG) of water storage for emergency use.
Figure 2: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Facilities
Source: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project EIR, 2007
In March 2007, the City Council certified the Final EIR and authorized staff to proceed with the
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The Notice to Proceed for the project was issued
in October 2009.
In April 2010, the California Department of Public Health15 (CDPH) approved a permit
amendment to add the new Library/Community Center Well and the Eleanor Pardee Park Wells
to the City’s existing water supply permit. As part of the permit process, both wells were tested
for primary and secondary water quality standards. The results of the test indicate both wells
currently meet primary and secondary water quality standards, but the potential remains for
exceedance of secondary standards for manganese, iron and TDS. However the wells will
remain standby sources for the foreseeable future and as such no additional treatment to
ensure compliance with secondary standards is required at this point.
In an emergency situation, the City can provide emergency chlorination treatment at several of
the new and existing Well sites, including the Library/Community well, Eleanor Pardee well,
Hale Well, Peers Well, and Rinconada well.
The City has identified the wells as a potential supply source for use during a prolonged
drought. As specified in the EIR for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, concern
15 CDPH issues and has the authority to revise domestic water supply permits pursuant to Health and Safety Code
section 116525 (City of Palo Alto permit # 4310009).
over prolonged groundwater pumping in the area resulted in a maximum production limitation
of 1,500 AFY during a drought16. If the wells were to be used as a dry year supply option, the
City would need to coordinate with CDPH to ensure the necessary treatment was in place to
meet regulatory standards for this purpose. In addition, several other issues will need to be
addressed prior to the use of the wells during a drought, including the capital costs of any
treatment or blending upgrades that may need to occur, water quality issues compared to the
City’s SFPUC source, customer acceptance, SCVWD groundwater production costs, and the
exact mechanism for how groundwater production would form a part of any drought response
portfolio. At this time, the City has no plans to use groundwater during a drought. Once the
Emergency Water Storage and Supply Project is complete, the City will re‐evaluate the
feasibility of using groundwater as a supplemental supply during a drought.
Transfer or Exchange Opportunities
Law
10631 (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a
short‐term or long‐term basis.
Because the existing San Francisco regional water system does not have sufficient supplies in
dry years, dry‐year water transfers are potentially an important part of future water supplies.
The City has undertaken three activities to support such transfers:
1) From 1996 to 2000, the City participated in the development of the SFPUC‐BAWSCA Water
Supply Master Plan (WSMP) which identified dry‐year purchases as an important part of the
future water supply. The discussion in the WSMP includes purchasing additional Tuolumne
River water and water from willing sellers located geographically south of the Delta who
possess water rights or contractual entitlements to water diverted from the Delta. In
addition, the WSMP identifies potential opportunities for water purchases from willing
sellers upstream of the Delta along the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.17 The WSMP was formally adopted by the SFPUC and
implementation of the WSMP (including investigating dry‐year transfers) is ongoing.
2) In January 2011, the Palo Alto City Council approved a new Water Shortage Implementation
Plan to allocate water between the BAWSCA members. This plan includes the ability to
transfer water allocated to the BAWSCA agencies between BAWSCA members during
drought periods. As of April 2011, all the BAWSCA agencies have unanimously adopted the
plan.
16 Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, SCH #
2006022038
17 Draft SFPUC 2005 UWMP 100507, Section 5, Page 34
3) The City is monitoring the development of a water transfer market in California, including a
mechanism for BAWSCA members to transfer contractual entitlements on the SFPUC
system. The City supports SFPUC’s efforts to pursue cost‐effective dry‐year water transfers
as part of the overall water supply for the SFPUC system. BAWSCA has the ability to pursue
water transfers on its own as long as a wheeling arrangement can be negotiated with the
SFPUC.
Water Recycling
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in
the supplier's service area…
The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment
plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto,
and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior
to discharge to the Bay. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP service area. Of the
wastewater flow to the RWQCP, about 60 percent is estimated to come from residences, 10
percent from industries, and 30 percent from commercial businesses and institutions. The
RWQCP uses physical, biological, and chemical treatment to remove about 99 percent of the
solids and organic materials from influent wastewater.
In 1992, the City and the other RWQCP partners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan
(Master Plan). This Master Plan identified a five‐year, three‐stage implementation for recycled
water development in the service area of the RWQCP.
In 1995, City Council certified the final PEIR for the Master Plan projects. At the same time, the
City decided not to pursue any of the recommended expansion stages of a water recycling
system as the cost of the projects could not be justified. In addition, Council adopted a Water
Recycling Policy, which includes continuation of the existing recycled water program and
monitoring of the conditions that would trigger an evaluation of the Master Plan projects
studied in the Program EIR. The Water Recycling Policy described five conditions that would
trigger evaluation of the Master Plan projects:
1. Changes in the RWQCP discharge requirements;
2. Increased mass loading to the RWQCP;
3. Requests from partner agencies or other local agencies;
4. Availability of federal or other funds; and
5. Water supply issues – Issues which may lead to an increase in the value of recycled
water from a water supply perspective include:
a. Water supply availability shortages;
b. Regulatory or legislative initiative; or
c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse.
Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning
The City has participated in various regional recycled water planning initiatives:
The City completed the Water Reclamation Master Plan (1992) for the service territory of
the RWQCP.
The City is a stakeholder in the ABAG‐led effort to secure grant funding for a Bay Area
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and for projects identified in that
IRWMP.
CPAU and the partners of the RWQCP committed to assist in the funding of a project to
build a new recycled water pipeline from the RWQCP to Mountain View. This project will
not have new connections to end uses in the City, but the pipeline is sized to accommodate
future expansion of recycled water use in the City. The project was completed in summer
2009.
The City is a member of the California WateReuse Association, which helps promote and
implement water recycling in California.
The City is a member of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a group of regional recycled
water project proponents that advocate for and seek funding from the Federal Bureau of
Reclamation under Title 16.
The City actively participates on the SCVWD recycled Water Sub‐Committee. The
Committee is a group of recycled water retailers and wholesalers that meets bimonthly to
discuss issues and challenges surrounding the use and promotion of recycled water.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto
The City’s wastewater flows to the RWQCP. The RWQCP is an EPA award winning Class V
tertiary treatment facility featuring primary treatment (bar screening and primary
sedimentation), secondary treatment (fixed film reactors, conventional activated sludge,
clarification and filtration), and tertiary treatment (filtration through a sand and coal filter and
UV disinfection). Through these treatments, 99% of ammonia, organic pollutants, and solid
pollutants are removed. While the plant was not designed to remove metals, the treatment
process through optimization has reduced the quantity of mercury, silver, and lead by 90%. The
removal rates for other heavy metals range from 20 to 85%.
The plant's discharge meets very high standards that are among the most stringent discharge
standards in the nation18. The quality of the water leaving the plant approaches the standards
for drinking water. In fact, the heavy metal content in the plant's discharge is low enough that
the water would be appropriate for reuse with only one additional disinfection step. Table 6
provides some data on the RWQCP. A full description of the treatment facility is included in the
1992 Water Reclamation Master Plan and is not reproduced here.
Table 6: Wastewater Treatment
Treatment
Plant Name
Location
(City)
Average
Daily
(2010)
Maximum
Daily
(2009)
Year of
Planned
Build‐out
Planned Maximum Daily Volume
RWQCP City of
Palo Alto
21.5 MGD 68 MGD Plant built
out
80 MGD = Maximum Design Daily Flow
39 MGD = Average Design Daily Flow (Dry
weather capacity)
Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A […] quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and
treated…
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)
The RWQCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 MGD with full tertiary
treatment, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD with full secondary treatment.
Current average flows are approximately 22 MGD. The plant capacity is sufficient for current
dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans for expansion or
to “build‐out” the plant.
All of the wastewater treated at the RWQCP can be recycled. The plant already has some
capability to produce recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard
(approximately 4.5 MGD of capacity of which 4.5 MGD is presently available). In September
18 City of Palo Alto’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No: CA 0037834
2010, the RWQCP completed installation of a new ultraviolet disinfection facility which will
allow a gradual increase in the amount of recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted
use standard (Table 7). The remaining treated wastewater meets the restricted use standard
and can also be recycled.
Table 7: Wastewater Collected and Treated – MGD
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Wastewater Collected and Treated 22.3 23.5 24.6 25.8 27.4
Quantity that meets recycled water
“restricted use” standard 18.3 17 16.6 17.8 19.4
Quantity that meets recycled water
“unrestricted use” (Title 22) standard 4 6.5 8 8 8
Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A description of the […] methods of wastewater disposal.
10633 (b) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the
supplier's service area, including but not limited to, the type, place and quantity
of use.
10633 (c) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled
water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation,
wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater
recharge, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the
technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
10633 (d) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area
at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years
Disposal of Wastewater
The City of Palo RWQCP currently discharges treated wastewater to the San Francisco Bay
(Table 8).
Table 8: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – MGD
Method of Disposal Treatment Level 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Discharge to San Francisco Bay Tertiary (restricted
use standard)
19.4 19.8 20.9 22.1 23.7
Discharge to Bay after going
through Emily Renzel Marsh
Tertiary (restricted
use standard)
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Total 20.6 21.0 22.1 23.3 24.9
Recycled Water Currently Being Used
The recycled water produced by the RWQCP is currently being used for the following:
Irrigation water for Greer Park in Palo Alto (87 AFY19)
Irrigation water for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (109 AFY 20)
Various uses at the Palo Alto Municipal Service Center, including use in street sweepers,
dust control at construction sites, vehicle washing, and for irrigating road median strips
A new pipeline to serve Shoreline Park and other customers in Mountain View was
completed in Summer 2009. The new pipeline delivered approximately 391 AFY of
recycled water in 2010 and is projected to deliver approximately 1,500 AFY at peak
production21.
Water for enhancements at the Emily Renzel Marsh in Palo Alto. The RWQCP pumps
from 1.0 to 1.5 MGD of water into the 14‐acre freshwater marsh. This water does not
get the full, recycled water treatment, just the standard tertiary treatment from the
plant (restricted use standard). The recycled water used in the marsh enhancement
project does not replace potable water (average of 1.2 MGD, or 1,344 AFY).
Water for the Duck Pond in Palo Alto (36.83 AFY22)
Water for irrigation in and around the RWQCP and in processes at the plant itself. The
amount of recycled water that replaces potable water for this use is about 0.5 MGD, or
560 AF/Y. That usage can be broken down as about 0.2 MGD for landscape irrigation
and about 0.3 MGD for mechanical seals and cooling water for the oil cooler on the
blowers. An additional 1 MGD (1,120 AFY) of recycled water is used at the RWQCP as
stack scrubber water, but this use does not replace potable water.
Water that can be collected by trucks at the plant to be used for dust control at
construction projects, for irrigation, and in street sweepers. The quantities of this use
vary, but can be up to 5,000 gallons per day23.
19 Greer park usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
20 Golf Course usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
21 Since the City of Mountain View provides potable water service within Mountain View, the recycled water
deliveries for the Mountain View project are not included in the Palo Alto UWMP.
22 Duck Pond usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
23 Current uses include service road dust suppression at the Palo Alto landfill (ending July 2011); East Palo Alto
Irrigation water for CALTRANS, which may use up to 50,000 gallons per day in the
summer for irrigating (by truck) the median strips on local highways.
Potential Uses of Recycled Water
After finalizing the 2005 UWMP, the City completed several new studies on potential uses for
recycled water and updated recycled water demand estimates accordingly. Based on these
studies, the City has updated the recycled water projections previously included in the 2005
UWMP. The potential uses in Palo Alto for recycled water are shown in Table 9 below. The
table shows current use continuing for 2010 and the potential for expansion is shown in the
totals for 2015 and beyond.
Recycled Water Market Survey
Since the Council adopted the Water Recycling Policy in 1995, several things have occurred that
prompt a review of the feasibility of recycled water use in the City, including the following:
1. The SFPUC has begun implementing the WSIP to repair and improve the regional water
system’s infrastructure. This $4.6 billion program has resulted in steadily increasing
wholesale water rates. Wholesale water rates are projected to double from the current
(FY 2011) rates of $848/AF to over $1850/AF in FY 2016. In addition, the recent
Sanitary District sewer main flushing; and Caltrans median and shoulder irrigation during water shortages.
Table 9: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water ‐ Potential AFY
Treatment
Level
Type of Use 2010
(Actual)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape 421 1321 1321 1321 1321
Industrial 336 336 336 336 336
Groundwater Recharge 0 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Duck Pond 36 24 24 24 24
Trucked uses for dust control
and/or landscape irrigation
10 3 3 3 3
Tertiary
treatment plus
additional
disinfection
(Title 22
unrestricted
use standard)
Total 803 1,684 1,684 1,684 1,684
Wildlife Habitat/Wetlands
Enhancement (Emily Renzel
Marsh)
1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344
Industrial 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120
Tertiary
treatment
(restricted use
standard)
Total 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464
Grand Total 3,267 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148
economic downturn and conservation efforts have negatively impacted water sales that
may result in additional upward revisions on supply costs. At these prices, and
considering the local benefits of a recycled water supply source, recycled water is
increasingly competitive with the cost of SFPUC water.
2. The RWQCP completed a project to replace an existing deteriorating pipeline to
Shoreline Golf Course in Mountain View and to extend the pipeline to the Mountain
View‐Moffett area. The pipeline replacement restored the golf course connection and
will provide recycled water services to the Shoreline community. CPAU paid $1 million
of the cost for this pipeline to ensure the pipeline will be sized to meet possible future
needs in the City. In addition, CPAU has committed to pay another $1 million if and
when it taps into the new pipeline.
3. There are potential partners for expanding the use of recycled water in the City. Since
there is a regional benefit to maximizing local sources, neighboring communities and the
Bay Area at large may wish to participate financially in an expansion of recycled water
use in the City, especially if there are no feasible sites in their own communities.
Since enough has changed and because it has been over 13 years since the 1992 Water
Reclamation Master Plan was complete, the City engaged a consultant to complete a Recycled
Water Market Survey (Market Survey). The Recycled Water Market Survey began in July 2005
and was completed in 2006. The objectives of the study were to review and update the list of
potential recycled water users identified in the 1992 Master Plan and to update the estimated
recycled water use potential and the cost estimates for the delivery of recycled water. The
Market Survey included site investigations, market analysis, conceptual project design, and
preparation of a preliminary financing and revenue plan.
Recycled Water Facility Plan
Following completion of the recycled Water Market Survey, the City applied for and secured
grant funding for the project planning from the SWRCB through the Regional Water Recycling
Facilities Planning Grant Program. The grant provided a 50% cost share with the City for up to
$75,000 to fund the preparation of a Facilities Plan for the recycled water project. The purpose
of the facility plan was fourfold:
1. Define recycled water alternatives (i.e. reuse sites and demands, distribution alignment,
sizing, construction alternatives, etc) and identify a Recommended Project;
2. Develop a realistic funding strategy for the Recommended Project;
3. Develop an implementation strategy for the Recommended Project; and
4. Provide the basis for any future State and Federal grant requests for the Recommended
Project.
The City engaged a consultant in April 2007 to assist in preparing the Facility Plan. Based on the
analysis in the Facility Plan, the report identified a Recommended Project to serve customers in
the Stanford Research Park area and potentially offset the need to import approximately 900
AFY of potable water. Figure 3 below illustrates the areas currently being provided recycled
water (Phases 1&2) and the future potential Phase 3 project to serve the Stanford Research
Park.
Figure 3: Phase III Recycled Water Project
The Facility plan provided a comprehensive analysis of the Stanford Research Park project,
including detailed costs estimates. The Facility Plan identified a gross project cost of
approximately $2700/AF, as compared to a current SFPUC projection in 2016 of approximately
$1850/AF. The City is in the process of pursuing potential grant and low cost financing
opportunities and anticipates the cost to the City for the project will decrease, depending on
the alternative funding sources and amounts.
In December 2008, the Facility Plan was deemed complete by the State Water Resources
Control Board. Since completion of the Facility Plan, the City has been evaluating the Phase 3
extension of the existing recycled water delivery system to serve the Stanford Research Park.
The City began preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase 3 project in May 2009.
During preparation of the MND, elevated salinity levels in the recycled water were identified as
an area of concern to stakeholders. Based on subsequent discussions on the salinity issue, the
City decided to prepare an EIR for the project. The City anticipates releasing a draft EIR in
September 2011 and seeking City Council approval in late 2011. Following this, the City will
continue to pursue grant and others funding sources and will seek City Council approval of the
project once the business plan and project financing are complete.
Encouraging Recycled Water Use
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (e) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be
taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of
these actions in terms of acre‐feet of recycled water used per year.
The City encourages Recycled Water usage in the following ways:
Participating in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan process
Encouraging businesses and City departments to utilize the existing recycled water
capability within the City
Participating as an active member of the WateReuse Association, including hosting
meetings of the Northern California Chapter of the Association
Offering recycled water for free to users willing to pick it up at the RWQCP by truck
Adoption of the Recycled water Mandatory Use Ordinance
Adoption of the Salinity Reduction Policy
Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water
Since completion of the 2005 UWMP, the City has pursued several approaches to encourage
recycled water use.
The City Council adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use on
October 17, 2005. One of those principles is that new construction should be plumbed with
purple pipe to facilitate the use of non‐potable water for outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and
commercial and industrial processes in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.
The City approved a Mandatory Use Ordinance24 to require customers to prepare for recycled
water delivery in the future25. For most new construction and some renovations that meet
24 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.12
25 The Ordinance applies to non‐residential customers. The City has no plans to provide recycled water to
certain criteria, the applicant must install dual‐plumbing and prepare the site for irrigation with
recycled water. Compliance with the new ordinance is administered through the permit
process with the Building Department. The CPAU provides plan review services of landscape
and irrigation design plans, in order to ensure compliance with outdoor water efficiency and
recycled water requirements.
The City Council approved a Salinity Reduction Policy26in January 2010 to address the elevated
salinity levels in the recycled water. The policy identified inflow and infiltration as a likely
contributor to the elevated salinity levels, and provided a target salinity level based on
minimum inflow and infiltration into the wastewater collection system. The approved policy
outlined several future implementation steps to lower the TDS levels in the recycled water
towards the goal of increased customer acceptance of the use of recycled water.
The RWQCP will continue to monitor potential saltwater intrusion "hotspots" and
communicate the results to the RWQCP partners;
The RWQCP will develop a database to track salinity data and perform other
investigative work to support the effort;
CPAU will coordinate implementation of the recently approved Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan to manage the Palo Alto wastewater collection system and identify
inflow and infiltration reduction actions; and
The RWQCP will develop a groundwater management plan to coordinate salinity
reduction activities with the RWQCP partners and prepare for expanded recycled water
application. This groundwater management plan27 will be coordinated with the SCVWD,
which has jurisdiction over the groundwater basins in Santa Clara County.
Though no decision has been made at this time regarding retail recycled water pricing, the City
may implement financial incentives and other mechanisms to encourage the use of recycled
water. One common method to promote recycled water is to provide recycled water at a
discount to potable water.
Recycled Water Optimization Plan
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
residential customers
26 City Council Resolution 9035.
27 The SCVWD is in the process of updating its existing groundwater management plan.
10633 (f) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's
service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution
systems and to promote recirculating uses.
The City continues to examine methods to expand the use of recycled water. Completion of the
Recycled Water Market Survey and Facility Plan is a step in that direction. The City expects that
the costs of implementing expanded recycled water use can be reduced through a combination
of regional coordination and state and federal matching funds.
BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
Palo Alto is a participating agency on the BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy.
The Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy will evaluate potential new supply sources to
meet normal and dry year BAWSCA member needs. Palo Alto has submitted for inclusion in the
strategy the Phase 3 project and a regional recycled water program with the recycled water
supply from the RWQCP. These projects will be evaluated during subsequent phases of the
BAWSCA effort.
RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is in the process of preparing a Long Range
Facilities Plan for the Palo Alto RWQCP. Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and
the movement to full sustainability will require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes.
The Long Range Facilities Plan will map out these changes and focus on biosolids treatment and
disposal, waste‐to‐energy technologies, energy use, major pipeline repairs, recycled water
treatment, carbon footprint impacts, and the best alternatives for rehabilitation, replacement
or improvement.
Indirect Potable Reuse
The City has no plans at present to evaluate Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) to meet future
demands. Since the SCVWD is the principle agency responsible for the groundwater in Santa
Clara County, any IPR analysis will most likely be managed by the SCVWD, in close coordination
with the water retailers in the County. The City anticipates that the SCVWD’s Water Supply and
Infrastructure Master Plan will evaluate IPR as part of any future supply portfolio. This
evaluation may identify the RWQCP as a potential future IPR supply source.
Desalinated Water
The City has no plans for development of desalinated water at this time. It is possible a
desalination facility may be part of a preferred supply portfolio identified in the BAWSCA Long
Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy. The City is currently aware of one regional collaborative
effort between different water agencies to evaluate a large scale Bay Area desalination project,
The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project is a
collaboration between the East Bay Municipal Utility District, SCVWD, the SFPUC, Contra Costa
Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency to jointly explore developing the feasibility of a
regional desalination facility that could directly or indirectly benefit 5.4 million San Francisco
Bay Area residents and businesses served by these agencies.
Section 4 – Water Demand
Law
10631 (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current
water use, over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a), and
projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors including,
but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single‐family residential; (B) Multifamily; (C) Commercial; (D) Industrial; (E)
Institutional and governmental; (F) Landscape; (G) Sales to other agencies; (H)
Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or
any combination thereof; and (I) Agricultural.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same 5‐year increments to 20
years or as far as data is available.
10631.1 (a) include projected water use for single‐family and multi‐family
residential housing for lower income households, as identified in the housing
element of any City, County, or City and County in the service area of the
supplier.
10608.2 Provide baseline daily per capita water use target, interim urban water
use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the basis for
determining those estimates.
Historical Water Usage
The two drought periods since 1975 have had a profound effect on City and customer attitudes
as well as how water is used. Substantial capital investments were made in 1977 toward more
water‐efficient equipment in the commercial and industrial sectors. New construction in every
sector is subject to increasingly stringent regulations regarding water‐using appliances and
fixtures.
Overall water use per account decreased by 27% during the last nine years (from 332 hundred
cubic feet (ccf) in 2000 to 242 ccf in 2010). In fact, all customer classes showed a significant
reduction in annual water use per account. During this period, water use per account
decreased by 46% for industrial customers, by 32% for commercial customers, by 12% for
public facilities, and by 35% for City facilities. Single‐family residential water use decreased by
22% and multi‐family residential water use decreased by 34%.
The relative share of the total water usage made up by the residential customers has continued
to grow since the late 1980s. The residential single‐family customer class increased its share
from 41% to 47%. Including multi‐family residential and multi‐family commercial accounts,
water consumption in the residential sector in total increased its share from 50% to 62% of
total citywide consumption. The commercial sector share increased slightly from 20% to 21%,
while the industrial sector share dropped significantly from 20% to 8%. Public facilities share
4% of total consumption. This is unchanged since the late 1980s, although the percent of total
use dropped to 2% in 2004, then rose again in subsequent years. City facilities’ share of
consumption decreased slightly from 6% to 5%.
Current Water Usage
Figure 4 below shows the City’s potable water use since 1965 and a projection of water supplies
until the year 2030. Present water consumption is higher than FY 1993 (a drought year), but
significantly lower than the 1987 (pre‐drought) usage, and even lower in 2010 as a result of the
drier than normal conditions from 2006 to 2009, increased water conservation, and concurrent
economic recession. The reduction in present water consumption, compared to pre‐drought
levels, appears to be the result of several factors, including permanent water conservation
measures implemented during the past 25 years.
Figure 4: Historical Water Supplies – Actual and Forecast
In June 2008, in response to deteriorating water supply conditions, customers of the SFPUC
system were asked to voluntarily reduce water use by 10%. City of Palo Alto water use
decreased 16% from 2007 to 2010. The City’s water consumption is forecast to remain
relatively stable in the future, with a slight increase due to a rebound in the economy and
continued, albeit gradual, increase in population and employment numbers. Future projections
are uncertain, but large increases in consumption are unlikely. The following discussion
explains water use trends.
Water Sales
Total water sales decreased by 22%, from 14,335 AF to 11,236 AF per year between 2000 and
2010. For the forecast period, Table 10 shows demand projections by customer type before
incorporating the impact of planned DMMs discussed in Section 5 – Demand Management
Measures. Total demand projections after netting out the impact of DMMs are shown at the
bottom of Table 10.
Table 10: Past, Current and Projected Water Sales (Before DMMs)
Actual Sales Data Forecast Segment
2000 2005 2010 ’00‐’10
Change
2015 2020 2025 2030
Single‐family
Accounts 14,737 14,941 15,458 5%16,237 17,268 18,003 19,720
Units (AFY) 6,494 5,927 5,334 ‐18%7,106 7,429 7,640 8,269
Multiple‐family
Accounts 1,919 1,947 2,248 15%2,110 2,244 2,339 2,563
Units (AFY) 2,469 1,986 1,806 ‐27%2,374 2,459 2,510 2,699
Commercial
Accounts 1,621 1,755 1,870 13%1,476 1,481 1,511 1,545
Units (AFY) 2,933 2,465 2,311 ‐21%2,367 2,321 2,319 2,331
Industrial
Accounts 245 254 251 3%224 225 229 234
Units (AFY) 1,518 1,007 847 ‐44%1,262 1,264 1,287 1,313
City Facilities
Accounts 232 299 322 28%319 340 354 388
Units (AFY) 607 564 544 ‐11%679 723 753 830
Public Facilities
Accounts 62 85 89 30%71 76 79 86
Units (AFY) 314 268 395 26%413 441 461 507
Total Retail Sales
Accounts 18,815 19,281 20,238 7%20,438 21,633 22,516 24,536
Units (AFY) 14,335 12,217 11,236 ‐22%14,201 14,970 14,970 15,949
Future Planned Demand Management Measure Impact
Units (AFY) Included 1,083 1,651 1,810 2,247
Net Water Sales: Projected Water Sales After Subtracting Planned DMM Impacts
Units (AFY) 13,118 12,986 13,160 13,702
Demand Projection Development
The water demand projections for this 2010 UWMP were developed with the same “end use”
model that was used to develop the projections in the 2005 UWMP. Two main steps are
involved in developing an end use model: (1) Establishing base‐year water demand at the end‐
use level (such as toilets, showers) and calibrating the model to initial conditions; and (2)
Forecasting future water demand based on future demands of existing water service accounts
and future growth in the number of water service accounts.
Establishing the base‐year water demand at the end‐use level is accomplished by breaking
down total historical water use for each type of water service account (single‐family, multi‐
family, commercial, irrigation, etc.) to specific end uses (such as toilets, faucets, showers, and
irrigation). Forecasting future water demand is accomplished by determining the growth in the
number of water service accounts in a wholesale customer service area. Once these rates of
change were determined, they were input into the model and applied to those accounts and
their end water uses.
The end use model (also known as the Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision
Support System, or DSS model) also incorporates the effects of the plumbing codes on fixtures
and appliances including toilets, showerheads, and clothes washers on existing and future
accounts. The water sales projections presented in Table 10 were developed without the
impact of planned DMM programs. These programs are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this
report. At the bottom of Table 10 the projected water sales after netting out the impact of the
DMMs is shown.
Using baseline projections, it is expected that total water consumption in the City will remain
somewhat constant, and without the DMMs increase by about 29% from its current level of
11,236 AF per year in 2010 to 15,949 AF per year by the end of 2030. This forecast includes an
expected 17% increase in total number of accounts. This baseline projection includes
anticipated effects of the plumbing code on overall water use as well as expected ongoing
conservation efforts among customers. After incorporating the impact of DMMs, total sales are
expected to increase by 17% from the period 2010 to 2030.
Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type
Examination of 2010 consumption levels reveals that the residential sector (single‐ and multi‐
family residential and commercial multi‐family dwellings) is responsible for 62% of total water
consumption in the City. The business sectors including commercial and industrial customers
consume 29%, while public and City facilities consume the remaining 9%. Figure 5 below shows
the breakdown of 2010 consumption by customer type.
Figure 5: 2010 Water Use by Customer Class
Public Facilities
4%
Industrial
8%
Commercial
21%
Multi-family
16%
Residential Single
Family
46%
City Facilities
5%
Residential Sector
Water use in the residential sector (residential single‐family, residential multi‐family, and
commercial multi‐family) has decreased by 20% in total volume and percentage of overall
usage between 2000 and 2010, despite a considerable increase in total number of accounts.
This anomaly is particularly noticeable in the multi‐family accounts, where during the period of
2000 to 2010 the total number of accounts increased 15%, but water use decreased 27%. The
reduction in water use has many potential sources, including increased conservation, the recent
economic downturn and weather‐related impacts.
Commercial Sector
Water use per account in the commercial sector has declined dramatically despite a slight
increase in the total number of accounts from 2000 to 2010. This reduction in water use is
primarily attributed to water conservation efforts and enforcement of water efficient landscape
designs for new construction and renovation projects in the non‐residential sector.
Industrial Sector
Between 2000 and 2010, water use in the industrial sector decreased in percentage of overall
usage and in total water volume. During this period, the total number of accounts increased by
3%, while water use decreased by 44%. The City provided significant support for water
efficiency measures at several industrial facilities, including efficiency improvements in process
water use and landscape design, which is a contributing factor for this dramatic decline in water
use. In addition, the RWQCP has an active pretreatment program that has been in place since
the early 1980s to identify and reduce pollutant loading to the RWQCP. The pretreatment
program has resulted in additional water efficiency gains.
City Facilities
Between 2000 and 2010, water use at City facilities has decreased in total overall volume by
11%. This is despite a 28% increase in number of accounts. The City has engaged in several
water conservation projects throughout its facilities to reduce its overall consumption.
Public Facilities
Between 2000 and 2010, overall water use and consumption per account decreased at public
facilities, although the total share of water sales among the customer classes remained the
same since 2000.
Sales to Other Agencies
The City does not plan on selling water supplies to other agencies.
Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use
Recycled water use is discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies,” under the heading “Water
Recycling.” Past use and future recycled water use projections are presented in Table 11
below. The City has not made a commitment to expand the use of recycled water in the City
and, therefore, the table reflects no increase in the use of recycled water in the future.
Table 11: Recycled Water Use (AFY)
2000 (actual) 2010 (actual) 2030 (forecast)
Water Trucks 7 10 3
Greer Park 28 87 76
Golf Course 23 109 187
Duck Pond 0 36 24
RWQCP 560 560 560
Total 618 802 850
Non‐Revenue Water
Non‐Revenue water, or unaccounted‐for water, is the difference between the amount of water
purchased and the amount sold to customers. Non‐revenue water typically amounts to about
7% of total purchases. From CY 2005 to 2008, the City’s non‐revenue water volumes
significantly increased, with a peak in CY 2006 of 12.45%. In response, the City initiated a
comprehensive leak detection, meter locating and meter calibration program. As of 2009, the
non‐revenue water volumes have returned to expected levels. Table 12 presents the historical
and projected non‐revenue volumes for the City’s water system.
Table 12: Non‐Revenue Water
2005 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Non‐Revenue Water (AFY) 1,320 910 1,027 1,135 1,170 1,192 1,269
Total Water Use
Table 13 shows total water use in the City.
Table 13: Total Water Use (AFY)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Retail Sales 11,236 13,118 12,986 13,160 13,702
Non‐Revenue Water 1,027 1,135 1,170 1,192 1,269
Recycled Water Use 802 850 850 850 850
Total Water Use 13,065 15,103 15,007 15,203 15,821
Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use
Palo Alto was one of the first jurisdictions in California to establish an official low to moderate
income housing requirement in 1974. The Below Market Rate (BMR)28 program now requires
developers of projects with five or more units to comply with the City’s BMR requirements. The
BMR program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each
development rather than off‐site units or in‐lieu payments. At least 15% of the housing units
developed in a project involving fewer than five acres of land must be provided as BMR units.
Projects involving the development of five or more acres must provide at least 20% of all units
developed as BMR units. (Projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing may need to
provide a 25 percent BMR component). The BMR units must be comparable to other units in
the development.
Due to the BMR requirements and the cost of housing in Palo Alto, the City has few single‐
family BMR units and does not anticipate this will change in the future. Approximately 1,945
units in the City meet lower income levels as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health
and Safety code29. Of these, 433 rental and ownership units, or 1.7% of the total housing units
28 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 – Housing Element
29 The difference between the total BMR units and the units that meet the requirements in the UWMP Act is due to
the inclusion of additional units that meet 81% to 120% of the Average Median Income in Santa Clara County. The
City provides these additional units in recognition of high cost of housing in Palo Alto.
meet the BMR requirements. The remaining 1,512 units, or 5.8% of total housing units, are
subsidized housing.30
The City is the only city in California that provides natural gas, water, wastewater, and electric
services to businesses and residents in the City. Through the electric and natural gas utilities,
the city provides a 25% rate reduction as assistance to those entities that meet income
requirements and other financial conditions31. As of February 2011, the City had approximately
1,000 electric accounts and 612 natural gas accounts receiving discounts under the program.
The discrepancy between the electric and gas accounts that receive financial assistance and the
BMR housing units is primarily related to different qualifying income limits.
For purposes of the current lower income projections, the 2010 UWMP has the following
assumptions:
1,512 units out of the total housing stock are considered for affordable housing
as determined by the classification of lower to moderate incomes.
These units are categorized as multi‐family.
The forecast model assumes an average of 1.9632 individuals per multi‐family
unit, or approximately 2,971, individuals. This corresponds to 4.82
% of the total population
The forecast model indicates multi‐family usage in Palo Alto averages 96 GPCD
Current projections for housing stock growth will continue to be heavily
weighted toward higher density, multi‐family housing.
Water consumption by low‐income customers should decrease due to higher
retail costs by elimination of the 25% utility discount provided on water rates.
Table 14: Projected Lower Income Water Demands (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Single‐family residential 0 0 0 0
Multi‐family residential 328 349 364 399
Total 328 349 364 399
The City anticipates the current low income BMR program will remain in effect in its current
form for the foreseeable future. Future housing and population projections inherently assume
that increases in housing stock will include growth in lower income households through the
BMR program. Based on future projected demand forecasts, the City expects to have ample
water supplies to meet all customers’ demands during a normal year. During a drought, the
City will follow the steps outlined in Section 8 (Water Shortage Contingency Plan). The Water
30 Current figures provided by the City of Palo Alto Planning Department.
31Eligibility for rate assistance is based on qualifying income limits as specified in HUD Program Income Limits
(Section 8, Section 221(d)(3) BMIR, Section 235 and Section 236)
32 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, assumes an average of 2.43 persons per multi‐family dwelling unit.
Shortage Contingency Plan addresses the City’s response depending on the severity of the
drought. The City will implement measures to maximize potential savings while at the same
time minimizing the impact to the well being of the citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. As
part of this process, the City Council will have an opportunity to balance the needs of different
customer classes with the need to achieve meaningful reductions33.
Water Conservation Bill of 2009
The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐7) was enacted in November 2009. It requires water
suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by
December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the
bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by
2015. Water agencies that are not in compliance with the provisions of the bill could be
ineligible for State grants and/or a low cost financing program.
Water suppliers have some flexibility in setting and revising water use targets leading up to the
2020 compliance period, including:
A water supplier may set its water use target and comply individually, or as part of a
regional34 alliance. The City is in discussions with BAWSCA and SCVWD regarding a
potential future alliance with other water agencies.
A water supplier may revise its water use target in its 2015 or 2020 urban water
management plan or in an amended plan.
A water supplier may change the method it uses to set its water use target and report
through an amendment to the 2010 plan or in its 2015 urban water management plan.
Urban water suppliers are not permitted to change target methods after they have
submitted their 2015 urban water management plan.
SBx7‐7 provided four potential compliance methods that are summarized below:
1. 80% of the urban water user’s baseline gallons per capita per day (GPCD) water use;
2. The per capita daily water use that is estimated using several performance measures,
subdivided between different customer classes;
3. Ninety‐five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in the
state’s draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009); or
33 Water Utilities typically do not possess income information for their customers and are limited in their ability to
offer differential rate treatment for low income customers due to Proposition 218 restrictions. During a drought, it
is more common for water utilities to differentiate between customers in a Class based on water usage patterns
and relative efficiency. For example, accounts with extremely low water use could be exempted from penalty rate
treatment.
34 SBx7‐7 allows entities to comply individually or as a group. The intent of this provision is to ensure there is
equity among small agencies and large water agencies or districts that serve large areas that may span different
socioeconomic and evapotranspiration zones.
4. A method that was identified and developed by the department, through a public
process, and released on February 18, 2011. The fourth method uses a combination of
metered sales data and achieved water use reductions across the different customer
classes.
The City is providing a draft methodology to ensure compliance with the requirements of SBx7‐
7. However, the City may adjust both the methodology and the compliance target in its 2015
UWMP. City staff evaluated the four potential options based on several criteria, including, ease
of implementation, community compatibility, benefits/costs, and consistency with the City’s
own water efficiency goals and policies.
Based on this evaluation, the City is adopting a preliminary compliance methodology based on
the first option, or 80% of an urban water user’s baseline GPCD. Under this methodology, the
City is required to prepare the following calculations for compliance purposes:
Baseline daily per capita water use — The City must determine for baseline purposes
how much water is used within an urban water supplier’s distribution system area on a
per capita basis. It is determined using water use and population estimates from a
defined range of years. For the City, the range selected is from calendar year 1994 to
2004 (Table 15).
Urban water use target — This value is equal to 80% of the baseline daily per capita
water use value.
Interim urban water use target — The planned daily per capita water use in 2015 is
halfway between the baseline daily per capita water use and the urban water use
target.
Compliance daily per capita water use ‐ The gross water use during the final year of the
reporting period, reported in gallons per capita per day. This value will be adjusted
during the 2015 and 2020 compliance period based on actual usage data.
Table 15 illustrates the methodology to calculate the 10‐year average baseline per capita water
use.
Based on future water use and population growth projections, Table 16 summarizes Palo Alto’s
2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 target and compliance goals.
SBx7‐7 requires UWMP preparers to meet both the interim 2015 and 2020 targets. As stated
previously in this section, an urban water retailer has the flexibility to adjust the compliance
target and to adjust the methodology in 2015. After 2015, the urban water supplier may not
adjust the methodology, but there is the potential to adjust the compliance target as more
current water use data becomes available. In addition, an agency that is at risk of non‐
compliance may, under limited circumstances36, seek to adjust its compliance daily per capita
water use. Eligible circumstances include:
Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the baseline period compared to the
compliance reporting period;
35 ABAG 2009
36 CA Water Code; Section 10608.24 (d) (1)
Table 15: Baseline daily per capita water use — 10 year Range
Calendar Year Distribution System
Population35
Daily system gross
water use (MG)
Annual daily per capita
water use (GPCD)
57,249 4,376 210
57,519 4,522 216
57,789 4,737 226
58,058 4,999 237
58,328 4,491 212
58,598 4,870 229
58,898 5,021 235
59,459 4,937 230
60,019 4,838 223
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 60,579 4,576 209
Base Daily Per Capita Water Use 223.3
Table 16: 2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 Performance Metrics (GPCD)
2015 2020
SBx7‐7 2015 Interim and Final Targets
Baseline Daily per capita water use 223 223
Interim Target (10% reduction from Baseline)200.6 N/A
Final Target (20% reduction from Baseline)N/A 178.4
City of Palo Alto
Projected Compliance Daily per capita water use 191.9 179.3
Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use resulting from increased
business output and economic development that have occurred during the reporting
period; and
Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting from fire suppression services or
other extraordinary events, or from new or expanded operations, that have occurred
during the reporting period.
Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets
Table 16 provides a preliminary analysis of the City’s SBx7‐7 metrics. The City will continue to
monitor progress towards the goal, and make program adjustments during the 2015 UWMP
cycle. Potential adjustment to meet any shortfall could include the following:
The City is currently evaluating an extension of the current recycled water system to
serve customers in the Stanford Research Park area. This project was discussed in
Section 3, but has not been included in the long‐term water use projection identified in
the 2010 UWMP, largely due to the uncertainties surrounding project feasibility. Full
build‐out of the project would result in an anticipated yield of approximately 900 AFY37
The City is currently operating or is in the process of launching several new conservation
programs with particular emphasis on outdoor irrigation efficiency including high water
use landscape conversion, and improved efficiency measures for the commercial,
industrial, and institutional sectors. Additionally, the use of graywater reuse, rainwater
harvesting systems, and other water efficiency measures may be evaluated further for
conservation potential leading up to the 2015 UWMP. The City is committed to
promoting all cost‐effective conservation programs that meet both the City’s water
reduction goals and community interest. Palo Alto shifts emphasis between different
conservation programs depending on various factors, including community acceptance.
Over time, the program mixture may change, though the overall savings goals will
remain constant.
BAWSCA recently completed for its members an evaluation of different regional
compliance structures. There are several scenarios which would enable Palo Alto to
enter into beneficial relationships that could minimize any identified shortfall by
adjusting the baseline use and future target water uses. In the event a shortfall
appears, the City will evaluate potential relationships in the period leading up to the
2015 UWMP.
Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance
There are no incremental economic impacts associated with SBx7‐7 compliance at this time.
The decision to implement additional conservation measures in the future will not necessarily
depend on the need to comply with SBx7‐7; Palo Alto typically evaluates all measures that are
37 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan, June 2008
cost‐effective compared to the incremental cost of purchasing additional water supplies from
the SFPUC system 38 .
The schedule for the recycled water project could be accelerated in response to a deficiency
identified during the 2015 UWMP cycle. The City will evaluate the cost and benefits of the
recycled water project with consideration for all legal and regulatory compliance benefits it
may provide.
For a regional alliance, the City does not know the cost of any partnership that may allow it to
comply with SBx7‐7. However, the City will continue to evaluate a regional alliance and
provide additional information during the 2015 UWMP cycle.
38 These measures are discussed in detail beginning on page 72.
Section 5 – Demand Management Measures
Law
10631 (f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management
measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is
currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation,
including the steps necessary to implement any proposed
measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (the
law then lists the fourteen demand management measures).
A Demand Management Measure (DMM) 39 is a specific action taken by a water supplier to
reduce water demand in support of its water conservation efforts. The Urban Water
Management Planning Act identifies 14 DMMs that are to be evaluated in each Urban Water
Management Plan (Water Code § 10631(f). The DMMs identified in the statute include:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
F. High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts
J. Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs
K. Conservation Pricing
L. Water Conservation Coordinator
M. Water Waste Prohibition
N. Residential Ultra‐Low‐Flush Toilet Replacement Programs
Measures to Comply with SBx7‐7
The following sections provide general information on the measures the City plans to
implement to meet its urban water use target. The estimated water savings from these
39 Although the industry commonly uses the terminology Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, the Urban
Water Management Planning Act in the California Water Code specifically references these as Demand
Management Measures (DMM). This language is used throughout this section to describe the City’s conservation
measures, but may be referred to in other sections as Demand Side Management programs.
measures, when available, have been incorporated into the City’s assessment of future water
demand. The DMMs described below have been evaluated and selected both for cost‐
effectiveness and potential to reduce water use to a level that will allow the City to meet its
interim and final per capita water reduction targets. These targets are identified in Section 4,
“Water Demand,” under the heading “Water Conservation Bill of 2009.”
Documenting Demand Management Measure Implementation
Law
10631.5(e) The urban water supplier may submit to the department copies of
its annual reports and other relevant documents to assist the department in
determining whether the urban water supplier is implementing or scheduling
the implementation of water demand management activities. In addition, for
urban water suppliers that are signatories to the Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and submit
annual reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council in
accordance with the memorandum, the department may use these reports to
assist in tracking the implementation of water demand management measures.
An urban water supplier’s UWMP must document implementation of its DMMs by either
providing the required information for each DMM or submitting a copy of its 2009‐2010
approved California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices
(BMP) report, if the supplier is a signatory to the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) regarding urban water conservation in California. The City has been a signatory to the
MOU with the CUWCC since 1991. Since becoming a signatory to the MOU and member of the
CUWCC, the City has saved more than 4,135 acre‐feet (AF) of water through conservation
programs. The City will strive to continue to implement programs that meet or exceed the
current BMPs as directed in the MOU.
Appendix C includes the City’s reports to the CUWCC for the last two years regarding the
implementation of the BMPs. The reports list the foundational BMPs a signatory water supplier
is required to report on, as well as documentation of compliance with the BMP water savings
goals. Compliance can be accomplished in one of three ways, including: accomplishing specific
measures, or programmatic BMPs; accomplishing a set of measures which achieves equal or
greater water savings, referred to as a “flex track” approach; and accomplishing set water
savings goals as measured in GPCD consumption. Agencies which choose the GPCD compliance
approach will count overall water savings of the quantifiable measures from the BMP
programmatic list or flex track option, plus additional savings achieved through implementation
of the foundational BMPs. The City has elected to pursue the GPCD approach as it aligns with
the City’s identified SBx7‐7 interim and final target for water reduction goals. The City also
provides a detailed explanation in this 2010 UWMP of each DMM included in the Urban Water
Management Planning Act applicable to urban retail water suppliers. The CUWCC recently
restructured the organization of the BMPs to group them according to type. Appendix D
demonstrates how the DMMs correlate to the BMPs.
Methods Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Demand Management Measures
It is the goal of the City to continue to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost‐
effective programs that best utilize the water conservation budget. The City has been working
with other BAWSCA agencies, SCVWD, and other water agencies in the Bay Area to investigate
methods for regional implementation of certain BMPs. In 2002, the City entered into an
agreement with SCVWD to cost‐share the development and implementation of water
conservation programs. Prior to 2002, the City offered several of the conservation programs in‐
house, or encouraged residents and businesses to participate in the conservation programs
offered county‐wide by SCVWD. As part of the overall water conservation efforts to comply
with the CUWCC BMPs, the City and SCVWD have partnered over the last nine years to
promote and cost‐share water conservation programs for Palo Alto customers. The City also
continues to evaluate opportunities for program partnership opportunities with BAWSCA and
other regional alliances.
To achieve its goals for cost‐effective water management, in 2004 BAWSCA, working with its
member agencies, developed a Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP) that analyzed
over 32 different measures40 using the same end‐use model developed for calculating the long‐
term water demand forecast. The City selected programs most likely to achieve the greatest
water savings, while still being cost‐effective for the utility and community as a whole. These
programs were reflected in the 2005 UWMP. These measures include audits and financial
incentives designed to achieve “active” water conservation savings, beyond the “passive” water
conservation savings achieved through enforcement of current and proposed plumbing codes.
The measures that were found to be cost‐effective and chosen by the City to be implemented
in future years included the following:
Residential Water Surveys
Residential Retrofit
Washing Machine Rebates
Public Information
Evapotranspiration (ET) Controller Rebates
Low‐Flow Restaurant Spray Nozzles
Large Landscape Conservation Audits
Rebates for Dual‐Flush Toilets
Water Audits Hotels‐Motels
40 SFPUC Wholesale Customer Water Conservation Potential Technical Report, December 2004.
Commercial Water Audits
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Ultra‐Low Flush (ULF) Toilet Rebate
Incentives for Replacement of Coin Operated Washers
Award Program for Commercial Water Savings
Since 2004, the City revised some of the DMMs originally evaluated and selected for the WCIP.
Following the 2005 UWMP, the City continued to implement a number of the selected
measures while others were discontinued and several new measures were introduced.
Program changes are the result of increased State and City water reduction goals, updates to
correspond with the BMPs, changes in technology for water using fixtures, and changes in
county‐wide program offerings by SCVWD, including those that the City cost‐shares with
SCVWD. Based upon these changes, the City has identified the following DMMs that are
currently implemented or are planned for future implementation following adoption of the
2010 UWMP:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers
2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
4. Residential Turf Replacement
5. Landscape Rebates for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
F. High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts
1. Commercial Water Audits
2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
4. CII High Efficiency Toilet Direct Installation Program
J. Conservation Pricing
K. Water Conservation Coordinator
L. Water Waste Prohibition
M. Residential Ultra‐Low‐Flush Toilet Replacement
N. New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations
O. Irrigation Classes for Homeowners
P. Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Q. Residential Graywater Reuse
These DMMs were evaluated as a group for effectiveness towards achieving the water
reduction goals necessary for compliance with SBx7‐7. Table 17 below shows the total water
and wastewater savings for DMMs for 2010 and every 5 years until 2030. Utility
implementation costs include per unit and administrative costs to CPAU and any of its cost‐
sharing partners.
Table 17: DMM Water Savings Summary
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Total Water Savings
(MGD) 0.37 0.97 1.47 1.62 2.02
Total Wastewater Savings
(MGD) 0.21 0.57 0.85 0.91 1.05
Total Outdoor Savings
(MGD) 0.16 0.40 0.62 0.71 0.97
Savings as a Percent of
Water Demand 2% 7% 10% 11% 13%
Utility Implementation
Cost ($2010) $580,160 $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604
Utility implementation costs are expected to decline over time as the number of new
participants in current conservation programs decreases. Participation is expected to decrease
with market saturation of efficient devices that will become the standard option for consumers.
Plus, state and local building and plumbing codes continue to mandate increased efficiency
standards for indoor and outdoor water use in new construction and renovated properties. For
these reasons, a number of conservation incentives will either become unnecessary or will no
longer be cost‐effective to implement. While participation in the DMMs listed above is
expected to decline over time, the City will continually evaluate its conservation program
offerings, including the introduction of new measures that will assist in meeting State and City
water reduction goals.
Marketing of Demand Management Measures
Through an operating agreement with the SCVWD that is updated annually, a variety of water
audits, landscape and irrigation rebates and incentives for appliances, toilets/urinals, and
operational reductions are provided to all customers. The City actively markets all its efficiency
programs to residents and businesses in the community through use of bill inserts, utility bill
envelope messaging, community announcements on utility bills, quarterly newsletters for the
community, efficiency programs brochures, print advertisements, website information, facility
manager and community meetings, and public outreach events. The City also leverages the
aggressive county‐wide conservation marketing campaigns administered by the SCVWD. In
addition to the SCVWD partnership with water retailers for bill messaging, the SCVWD also
promotes its conservation programs through use of television and radio ads, bus and billboard
signage, program literature, website information, and public outreach events. Although
programs are actively marketed year‐round, the City strives for timely, season‐appropriate
messaging. For example, during the spring and summer months, outdoor landscape irrigation
efficiency is a key focus for bill inserts and community announcements. During the winter
months, indoor water conservation programs are highlighted in public outreach.
Demand Management Measures
The following sections discuss each DMM in detail. These measures correlate to the current
BMPs identified by the CUWCC. The DMMs listed below are organized in the order as identified
in the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code § 10631(f)). For each program, the
benefit/cost ratio from the Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective is shown. The TRC cost‐
effectiveness test compares the total cost of implementing a measure, regardless of who pays.
The costs, therefore, include the cost of the device, any installation cost and the
implementation cost (e.g. advertising, tracking, performance monitoring, rebate processing,
etc.) of the program. The benefits include the avoided cost of additional water purchases. In
addition, the cost to CPAU, the “program cost,” is shown for each measure. This is the cost that
CPAU would incur to implement the program and may include rebate costs as well as any other
administrative costs borne by CPAU or its cost‐sharing partner(s) to conduct the program.
Demand Management Measure A ‐ Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family
and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1998. The program is
currently active and expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: Program provides free site surveys ($110 value) to residential
customers in both single‐family and multi‐family dwellings. The survey includes a review of
customer water use history, water meter check for leak detection assistance, and thorough
evaluation of indoor and outdoor water use. A technician provides each customer with free
low‐flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye tablets, and/or toilet flappers when needed.
The landscape survey includes an evaluation of the entire irrigation system, catch‐can test for
distribution uniformity, and site‐specific recommendations including changes to the irrigation
schedule. The program is actively marketed to residents by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM A of the UWMP Act, as well as
both BMP 3.1 – Residential Assistance Program, and BMP 3.2 – Landscape Water Survey. CPAU
plans to complete approximately 300 audits a year, for a market penetration of 2.55% per year
of current single and multi‐family accounts. SCVWD administers the program, collects
participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking
results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 3.07 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.06 million gallons of water per day (MGD) or 21.90 million gallons of water annually.
This is based on the assumption that on a per unit basis, the measure saves 5% of indoor and
10% of outdoor water use.
Table 18: Residential Water Surveys
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
278 SF
62 MF
328 SF
37 MF
328 SF
37 MF
323 SF
37 MF
329 SF
37 MF
330 SF
37 MF
351 SF
40 MF
Program Costs $41,400 $46,166 $46,009 $45,552 $46,372 $46,552 $49,474
SF: Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
Demand Management Measure B ‐ Residential Plumbing Retrofit
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1992. The program is
currently active. This program is expected to continue indefinitely, although requests for
devices outside of the residential water survey program are expected to decline significantly
after 2010 due to market saturation and advancements in the plumbing code.
Description of Measure: The program consists of free distribution of water saving devices ($15
to $30 value) to residents, consisting primarily of showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet flappers
and toilet leak dye tablets through the residential water surveys. Other means of distribution
are through SCVWD and CPAU public outreach events or through direct request by residents.
The program is actively marketed by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM B of the UWMP Act as well as
BMP 3.1 – Residential Assistance Program. SCVWD administers the distribution through the
residential water survey program and direct requests from residents, collects participant data
and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 7.39 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.01 MGD or 3.65 million gallons of water per year. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure reduces water use of 21% in showers and 2% in faucets
and toilets.
Table 19: Residential Plumbing Retrofit
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
276
SF/MF ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $6,280 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
Demand Management Measure C ‐ System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and
Repair
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure was required to commence before
July 1, 2009, in accordance with the CUWCC BMP implementation schedule. The program is
currently active and is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM C of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.2 – Water Loss Control – which requires water agencies to quantify their
current volume of apparent and real water loss, their causes by quantity and type, cost impact
of these losses on utility operations, and reduce real losses to the extent cost‐effective. A
component analysis to support the economic selection of intervention tools, and validated data
set for water audits and balances using the AWWA Water Loss software is also required.
Customers are advised whenever it appears possible that leaks exist on the customer side of
the meter.
Program Goals: CPAU will compile the standard water audit and balance worksheets annually,
demonstrate continued progress in water loss control performance, keep and maintain records
of audit results, methodologies, and component analyses of losses and their economic value.
CPAU will prepare a yearly summary of this information for submission to the CUWCC during
years two through five of implementation, unless extended by the CUWCC.
Cost Effectiveness: Analysis is not currently available.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are unavailable, as the City has
not yet completed a benchmark period to compare and track progress toward improving
performance in water loss control.
Demand Management Measure D ‐ Metering with Commodity Rates for all New
Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections
Implementation Status: CPAU has always metered water service connections in its service
territory. The practice is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM D of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.3 – Metering with Commodity Rates for all New Connections and Retrofit of
Existing Connections. The City installs meters for all new service connections; has an
established program for retrofitting existing unmetered service connections; reads meters and
bills customers by volume of use; and has prepared a written plan, policy or program that
includes:
o a census of all meters by size, type, year installed, customer class served and
manufacturer’s warranty accuracy when new;
o a currently approved schedule of meter testing and repair by size, type, and customer
class; and
o a currently approved schedule of meter replacement by size, type, and customer class.
In the future, the City may conduct a feasibility study to assess the merits of a program to
provide incentives to switch mixed‐use accounts to dedicated landscape meters and identify
intra and inter‐agency disincentives or barriers to retrofitting mixed‐use commercial accounts
with dedicated landscape meters.
Program Goals: In its BMP report, CPAU provides detailed testing criteria and practices, repair,
maintenance, and replacement criteria, and use of automatic metering technology.
Documentation consists of: confirmation that all new service connections are metered and
billed by volume of use; number of metered accounts; number of metered accounts read;
number of metered accounts billed by volume of use; frequency of billing; number of estimated
bills per year by type of metered customer versus actual meter readings; number of unmetered
accounts in the service area and minimum annual retrofit requirement; number of unmetered
service connections retrofitted during the reporting period; estimated number of CII accounts
with mixed‐use meters; and number of CII accounts with mixed‐use meters retrofitted with
dedicated irrigation meters during the reporting period.
Target Compliance: Since CPAU signed the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, the target date
for “on track” compliance with BMP 1.3 is 100% of unmetered accounts retrofitted by July 1,
2009. CPAU met the deadline to remain on track for compliance with this DMM and BMP.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that meter retrofits and volumetric rates
combined will result in a 20% reduction in demand for metered accounts. The City has not
performed an analysis of water use between metered versus unmetered accounts, therefore
past savings estimates for this measure are unavailable.
Demand Management Measure E ‐ Large Landscape Conservation Programs and
Incentives
E‐1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Customers
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1995 and is currently active.
Description of Measure: The program offers free site‐specific technical irrigation assistance
through full landscape surveys ($650 to $800 value) and free weather‐based irrigation
controller surveys ($340 value) to evaluate water use and improve irrigation efficiency. The
program is targeted to large landscapes of 5,000 square feet or greater at commercial and
multi‐family properties within the City. Irrigation auditors evaluate the entire water delivery
system for inefficiencies, including precipitation rates, distribution uniformity, hardware
condition, and irrigation schedule, to help a site manager understand system performance and
efficient irrigation scheduling strategies. Site managers are provided with an ETo‐based water
budget and comparison of actual water use to budgeted water use, with an estimate of water
and cost savings for efficiency improvements. The program is actively marketed by CPAU and
the SCVWD. Effective in 2011, SCVWD expects to launch a database‐backed website to deliver
real time water budget information to landscape and property managers via the internet.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires water service providers to provide non‐residential customers
with support and incentives to improve their landscape water use efficiency. SCVWD
administers the program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and
provides participation tracking results to CPAU.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 2.42 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.03 MGD or 10.95 million gallons annually. This is based on the assumption that the measure
will result in a 15% to 20% reduction in demand for landscape irrigation by affected accounts.
Table 20: Landscape Survey Program
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
18
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
20
CII/MF
20
CII/MF
Program Costs $15,960 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752
MF: Multi‐family residential CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
E‐2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active, but is expected to end in 2023 with the assumption that at that time all or
most irrigation controllers manufactured will use weather‐based technology.
Description of Measure: The weather‐based irrigation controller rebate program provides
rebates ($300 to $1,000 value) for upgrading existing conventional irrigation controllers to
qualifying weather‐based (evapotranspiration or ET) controllers with rain sensor technology.
Rebates are available for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional account
customers. Applicants must participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval for the
rebate. The program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires water service providers to implement and maintain
programs for improving landscape water use efficiency such as through offering technical
assistance and financial incentives for irrigation equipment retrofits. SCVWD administers the
program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides
participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.77 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.003 MGD or 1.10 million gallons annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per unit
basis, the measure will result in up to an average 6% to 15% reduction in exterior water use41.
Table 21: Weather‐Based (ET) Controller Rebates
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
7 SF
3 MF/CII
8 SF
1 MF/CII
8 SF
2 MF/CII
8 SF
2 MF/CII
8 SF
1 MF/CII ‐ ‐
Program Costs $2,336 $2,387 $3,002 $3,048 $3,226 ‐ ‐
SF : Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
41 Mayer, Peter, et al. Evaluation of California Weather‐Based “Smart” Irrigation Controller Programs. 2009.
Presented to the California Department of Water Resources.
E‐3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: The large landscape conversion program provides rebates to business
owners for replacing irrigated turf grass with a low water use landscape design, including use of
approved plants, mulch and other ground covers, and permeable hardscape. Applicants must
participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to proceed with a re‐landscaping
project for this rebate. Rebates are offered based on area of turf grass removed and replaced
with qualifying plants or materials. SCVWD offers a rebate of $75 per 100 square feet, which
CPAU matches for a combined rebate to Palo Alto customers of up to $150 per 100 square feet.
Businesses and other non‐residential facilities are eligible to receive up to $30,000, not to
exceed project costs. If used, irrigation systems within the converted area must be high‐
efficiency (low volume) in good working order with no overspray or runoff. The program is
actively marketed by CPAU and the SCVWD to large landscape customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires that water service providers implement and maintain
customer incentive programs to promote landscape water efficiency. SCVWD administers the
program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides
participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any
administrative costs borne by CPAU and SCVWD. The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 6.21
under the Total Resource Cost Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.14 MGD or 51 million gallons of water annually.
Table 22: Large Landscape Turf Replacement
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
8 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 4 MF/CII 4 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 3 MF/CII
Program Costs $41,400 $15,015 $20,030 $20,060 $15,083 $15,120 $15,158
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
E‐4. Residential Turf Replacement
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: The residential landscape conversion program provides rebates to
residents for replacing irrigated turf grass with a low water use landscape design, including use
of approved plants, mulch and other ground covers, and permeable hardscape. Applicants
must participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to proceed with a re‐
landscaping project for this rebate. Rebates are offered based on area of turf that has been
removed and replaced with qualifying plants or materials. The SCVWD offers a rebate of $75
per 100 square feet, which CPAU matches for a combined rebate to Palo Alto residents and
businesses of up to $150 per 100 square feet. Residents can receive a maximum of up to
$3,000, not to exceed project costs. If used, irrigation systems within the converted area must
be high‐efficiency (low volume) in good working order with no overspray or runoff. The
program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD to appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires that water service providers implement and maintain
customer incentive programs for landscape water efficiency. SCVWD administers the program,
collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation
tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any
administrative costs borne by CPAU and SCVWD. The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.96
under the Total Resource Cost Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.05 MGD or 18 million gallons of water annually.
Table 23: Residential Turf Replacement
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
61 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF
Program Costs $30,515 $25,025 $25,038 $25,075 $25,138 $25,201 $25,264
SF: Single‐family residential
E‐5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: This program provides rebates for replacement of inefficient or
defective irrigation hardware. Rebates are issued for replacement with approved high‐
efficiency irrigation hardware components. To qualify for the rebate, applicants must
participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to replace irrigation hardware.
Rebates vary based upon project scope and hardware costs. The program is actively marketed
by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program assists in meeting the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act,
Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives, as well as BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that
requires water service providers to implement and maintain customer incentive programs to
improve landscape water use efficiency. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant
data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU
on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.80 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that this measure will save 0.001 MGD or
0.365 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per unit
basis, the measure will result in a 30% water reduction during peak irrigation months.
Table 24: Irrigation Hardware Rebate
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
1 MF
0 CII
1 MF
0 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
Program Costs $183 $109 $583 $574 $582 $580 $560
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure F – High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate
Programs
F‐1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1995. The program is
currently active. It is expected to be continued until 2018 when it is assumed the rebate will no
longer be necessary as most clothes washers will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM F of the UWMP Act, as
well as BMP 3.3 – High Efficiency Clothes Washers ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
financial incentives for the purchase of high efficiency clothes washers that meet a minimum
average water factor value of 5.0. Based on criteria from Energy Star and the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency (CEE), CPAU offers a rebate ($125 value) based on the modified energy factor
and water factor as set by the CEE Residential Clothes Washer Initiative. Currently, the City
offers incentives for the purchase of clothes washers that meet a water factor of 4.5 or less and
modified energy factor of 2.2 and greater. CPAU cost‐shares the water efficiency portion of the
rebate with SCVWD and provides the energy efficiency portion of the rebate through the CPAU
Smart Energy Rebate Program. This program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD to
single‐family residents.
Program Goals: CPAU targets a market penetration rate of 35% per year of residential
customers for this program. CPAU administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to SCVWD on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 2.12 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.05 MGD or 18.25 million gallons of water per year. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure reduces laundry water use by 35%.
Table 25: Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
514 SF 618 SF 621 SF 631 SF ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $64,250 $84,939 $85,411 $86,825 ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
F‐2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2000. The program is
currently active. It is expected to be continued until 2018 when it is assumed the rebate will no
longer be necessary as most clothes washers will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: The program currently offers rebates ($400 value) towards installation
of large commercial high efficiency clothes washers in laundromats and common area laundry
rooms. This program targets the requirements of DMM F of the UWMP Act, as well as BMP 3.3
– High Efficiency Clothes Washers ‐ that requires water agencies to provide financial incentives
for the purchase of high efficiency clothes washers that meet a minimum average water factor
value of 5.0. This program may also meet the qualifications of BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional (CII) – that requires agencies to provide measures to CII customers to meet
water savings goals. Based on criteria from Energy Star and the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE), Inc., CPAU offers a rebate based on the modified energy factor and water
factor as set by the CEE Commercial Clothes Washer Initiative. Currently, the City and SCVWD
offer incentives for the purchase of clothes washers that meet a water factor of 4.5 or less and
modified energy factor of 2.2 and greater. This program is actively marketed by CPAU and
SCVWD to commercial and multi‐family property managers.
Program Goals: CPAU targets a market penetration rate of 15% per year of commercial and
multi‐family customers for this program. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant
data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU
on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.72 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.01 MGD or 3.65 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a
per unit basis, the measure will result in a 35% reduction in washing machine water use.
Table 26: Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
24
MF/CII
34
MF/CII
35
MF/CII
35
MF/CII ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $9,600 $14,449 $14,529 $14,770 ‐ ‐ ‐
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure G – Public Information Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1991. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM G of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.1 – Public Information Programs ‐ that requires agencies to maintain an active
public information program to promote and educate customers about water conservation.
Through various types of outreach events, multiple media outlets, and marketing pieces, CPAU
strives to inform residents and business owners of the value of conserving water and encourage
participation in efficiency programs.
Program Goals: The City has contact with the public and media at least four times per year,
actively maintains its website which is updated regularly, and provides an annual budget for
public outreach programs. The goal of this program is for CPAU to attend multiple local events
throughout the year such as environmental fairs at local businesses and schools, farmers
markets, community events and professional speaking engagements. Staff coordinates an
average of up to ten workshops on residential efficiency throughout the year, regularly updates
the website with new water supply and conservation program information, and provides timely
press releases to the media with information on current activities. CPAU administers the
program and collects participant data to estimate water savings. SCVWD also conducts county‐
wide public outreach for seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use of
television, radio and print advertisements, and website messaging.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 4.35 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.04 MGD or 14.6 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure will result in a 1% water use reduction per participant.
Table 27: Public Information
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
4,485 5,957 5,990 6,089 6,475 6,751 7,395
Program Costs $17,942 $23,827 $23,959 $174,35
6
$175,30
1
$177,00
5
$179,58
0
Demand Management Measure H – School Education Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1991. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM H of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.2 – School Education Programs ‐ that requires agencies to implement a school
education program to promote water conservation and water conservation‐related benefits.
The program includes working with school districts and private schools to provide instructional
assistance, educational materials, and classroom presentations that identify urban, agricultural,
and environmental issues and conditions in the local watershed. Educational materials are
designed to be grade‐appropriate and correspond to state education framework requirements.
CPAU works with the SCVWD to offer in‐classroom presentations, large group assemblies,
tabling at festivals and events, teacher training workshops, field trips to water treatment
facilities, and water conservation art contests. SCVWD has offered these programs to the
community since 1991. The presentations and materials provided are appropriate for grades
kindergarten through college. SCVWD administers the countywide educational program,
collects participation data, and provides tracking results to CPAU. CPAU also has a designated
representative on the local school district sustainability committee. This committee strives to
promote resource efficiency throughout all schools in the district.
Program Goals: This program has a goal of providing educational opportunities to all schools in
the City and continuing to work with school administrators to coordinate integration of the in‐
classroom presentations, contests, and/or field trips into curriculum.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings estimates have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are not quantified for this
measure, as it is difficult to monitor changes in behavior and activities that affect water use.
Impacts from school education programs may extend beyond initial contact with students to
the families and neighbors in the community.
Demand Management Measure I – Conservation Programs for Commercial,
Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts
I‐1. Commercial Water Audits
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2005. It is currently active.
Description of Measure: The program offers free site visits (up to $5,500 value) to commercial,
industrial, and institutional facilities to evaluate potential water savings, recommend a series of
site‐specific water efficiency measures, and calculate potential savings in water, sewer, and
energy charges as a result of implementing the measures. A thorough analysis of all indoor
water use on‐site, as well as a brief assessment of the landscape is conducted at each facility.
Facility managers are provided with a full report with recommendations and information on
other free programs or financial incentives available to assist with the efficiency measures. This
program was formerly administered by SCVWD and cost‐shared with CPAU, but is now offered
solely by CPAU in the Palo Alto service area. The program is actively marketed by CPAU to
appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts. This program assists CPAU
customers in identifying eligible equipment upgrades and facility process changes, including
unique conservation measures to achieve water saving goals, and contributes to the goal of
reducing overall CII water use. CPAU administers the program and collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.00 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.02 MGD or 6 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per
unit basis, the measure will result in a 12% reduction in water use.
Table 28: Commercial Water Audits
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
22 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII
Program Costs $41,400 $43,000 $43,000 $43,000 $54,723 $55,108 $58,059
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
I‐2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2011. It is expected to
continue through 2012.
Description of Measure: This program offers free direct installation of low‐flow pre‐rinse spray
valves, low‐flow faucet aerators, and low‐flow rotating showerheads in food service
establishments and at other eligible commercial sites. The City has contracted with a third
party consultant to provide the “direct install” approach, which involves going door‐to‐door
asking owners and managers of commercial locations if they are interested in receiving efficient
devices that save both water and energy. The consultant will then install the devices free of
charge (up to $188 value). The devices replace existing fixtures and are more efficient than
what is mandated through existing baseline plumbing and building codes. The program is
actively marketed by CPAU and third party consultant to appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts. This program is estimated to
install 100 low‐flow pre‐rinse spray valves, 1,000 low‐flow faucet aerators, and 400 low‐flow
rotating showerheads, and assists CPAU customers and the City with the goal of reducing
overall CII water use. CPAU administers the program and with the assistance of the third party
consultant, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.44 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.002 MGD or 1 million gallons of water annually.
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Table 29: Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
0 CII 300 CII ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $0 $41,025 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
I‐3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2002. The program is
currently active and is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program provides performance‐based incentives for water
efficiency improvements in the CII sector, and is designed to encourage innovative water
efficiency projects among the local business community. Rebates are offered for custom
projects not currently offered through the City’s prescriptive programs, when measurable
water savings can be identified for equipment retrofits or upgrades and/or facility process
changes. Eligible water efficiency projects need to save a minimum of 100 hundred cubic feet
(ccf) per year to qualify for participation in this program. The SCVWD offers a rebate of $4 per
ccf saved for eligible projects. Effective in FY 2011, CPAU agreed to match this rebate amount
through the cost‐sharing agreement with SCVWD for a total rebate to customers of $8 per ccf
saved. Through this program, facility managers can implement efficiency projects appropriate
for the water use operations on‐site.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts This program assists CPAU
customers with performance‐based water efficiency improvements, and contributes to the goal
of reducing overall CII water use. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 11.21 under the Total Resource
Cost Test. Program costs include unit as well as administrative costs to CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.23 MGD or 85 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per
unit basis, the measure will result in a 15% reduction in process water use for participating
facilities.
Table 30: Water Efficient Technologies Rebate
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII
Program Costs $10,005 $10,010 $10,015 $10,030 $10,055 $10,080 $10,106
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
I‐4. CII High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2000. This program is
currently active and is expected to continue until 2019 at which time it is assumed that most
toilets manufactured will be high efficiency. Prior to direct installation, the SCVWD offered an
ultra low flush toilet (ULFT) rebate program county‐wide from 1992 to 1999. The program
changed to direct installation in 2000, and beginning in 2005 SCVWD began installing only high
efficiency toilets (HETs).
Description of Measure: The program provides full service toilet replacement ($300 value) to
commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi‐family facilities. High volume, non‐ULFT toilets
flushing at 3.5 or greater gallons per flush (gpf) are replaced with high efficiency toilets that
flush at 1.28 or less gpf. Since 2007, this program has also offered free high efficiency flush
valve retrofit kits (0.5 gpf) to replace flush valves in high volume urinals that flush at greater
than 1.0 gpf. Free installation is included in this service for both toilets and urinals. The
program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts This program assists CPAU
customers with high volume water using fixture replacement, and contributes to the goal of
reducing overall CII water use. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.47 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.04 MGD or 14.60 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a
per unit basis, the measure will result in a 60% reduction in water use.
Table 31: Commercial High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $57,900 $36,008 $36,008 $36,008 ‐ ‐ ‐
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure J – Conservation Pricing
Implementation Status: The City has implemented conservation‐based pricing for water rates
since 1990. Conservation pricing is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM K of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.4 – Retail Conservation Pricing ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
economic incentives (price signal) to customers to use water efficiently, by using a minimum
percentage of water sales revenue from volumetric rates to recover the maximum amount of
water sales revenue that is consistent with utility costs, financial stability, revenue sufficiency,
and customer equity. The City implements a retail water rate structure through tiered rates in
which the volumetric rate increases as the quantity used increases. The allocation for rates
effective FY 2011 is 6% recovered through the fixed charge and 94% revenue recovery from the
volumetric charge.
Program Goals: The City strives to encourage conservation while recovering cost of service and
ensuring customer equity through its water pricing structure. City staff will continually evaluate
the effectiveness of its rate structure and ability to recover cost of service each fiscal year, and
change the water rates for customer classes as necessary.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions have not yet been quantified for
this measure. In the future, the City may conduct an analysis of changes in water demand over
time in relation to differing rate structures, in order to estimate potential water savings
resulting from conservation pricing.
Demand Management Measure K – Water Conservation Coordinator
Implementation Status: The City has employed a designated Conservation Coordinator for
close to 20 years, and expects to continue to do so indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM L of the UWMP Act, as
well as BMP 1.1.1 – Conservation Coordinator ‐ that requires water agencies to designate a
person as the agency’s responsible conservation coordinator for program management,
tracking, planning, and reporting on BMP implementation. The City currently retains one full‐
time equivalent employee to perform these necessary duties. This employee is responsible for
water conservation program development, implementation, evaluation, outreach, and
reporting activities.
Program Goals: The City will staff and maintain the position of a trained conservation
coordinator, and/or equivalent consulting support, and provide that function with the
necessary resources to implement the BMPs.
Conservation Coordinator Contact Information:
Catherine Elvert
Utility Account Representative
City of Palo Alto
Catherine.Elvert@CityofPaloAlto.org
(650) 329‐2417
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are not quantified for this
measure. The City attributes some portion of savings from its water conservation programs to
the employment of a conservation coordinator dedicated to program development and
deployment.
Demand Management Measure L – Water Waste Prohibition
Implementation Status: Implementation of water waste prohibition has been in effect since
1989. This practice is expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM M of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.1.2 – Water Waste Prevention ‐ that requires water agencies to enact and
enforce an ordinance or establish terms of service that prohibit water waste such as, but not
limited to: single‐pass cooling systems; conveyor and in‐bay vehicle wash and commercial
laundry systems which do not reuse water; non‐recirculating decorative water fountains;
irrigation, landscape, industrial, commercial, and other design inefficiencies or misuse of water.
Implementation also includes enforcement of water shortage response measures and permit
requirements for water efficiency design in new development.
Program Goals: The City has had a water waste ordinance in effect since 1989 (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 12.32). Enforcement includes written warning notices to violators and
may result in installation of a flow restrictor on the service connection of the customer or
purchaser of water whose service connection was used in the violations observed or
established, and bill the costs of such installation to said customer or purchaser. The City has
developed water shortage response measures, which are discussed within this UWMP.
Additionally, in 2010, the City adopted the new State Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen), which sets permit requirements for water efficiency design, including irrigation
systems, in new development.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings are not quantified for this measure.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: No formal analysis has been conducted to quantify water
savings resulting from implementation of this measure.
Demand Management Measure M ‐ Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet
Replacement Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1992. This program is
currently active and is expected to continue until 2019 at which time it is assumed that most
toilets manufactured will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: The residential program provides rebates ($125 value) to single and
multi‐family customers for replacement of high volume toilets flushing at 3.5 or greater gallons
per flush (gpf) with approved High Efficiency Toilets (HET) that flush no more than 1.28 gpf.
Approved HET models are certified by the EPA WaterSense Specification label. Pre‐approval is
required prior to replacing the toilet for the rebate. The program is actively marketed by CPAU
and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM N of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 3.4‐ WaterSense Specification (WSS) Toilets ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
incentives or ordinances requiring the replacement of existing toilets using 3.5 or more gpf with
a toilet meeting the WaterSense specification. This program has a goal of replacing toilets at or
above the level achieved through a retrofit on resale ordinance, or a market saturation of 75%
is demonstrated, whichever is sooner.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.00 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.09 MGD or 32.85 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure will result in a 60% reduction in water use per toilet.
Table 32: Rebates for High Efficiency Toilets
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
229 SF 571 SF 571 SF 571 SF ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $39,388 $193,592 $193,592 $193,592 ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
Demand Management Measure N – New Development Indoor and Outdoor
Regulations
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in January 2011. Enforcement
of the regulations is expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: The City adopted the State Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) in 2010, which went into effect in 2011. This code sets permit requirements for
water efficient design in residential and non‐residential new developments for both indoor and
outdoor water use. New construction and renovation projects must adhere to the water
efficiency and conservation regulations. Indoor regulations include prescriptive measures
requiring water using fixtures meet or exceed the plumbing standard minimum or document
performance based water conservation measures. Outdoor regulations include establishment
of a reference evapotranspiration (ETo) based water budget with a low water use landscape
design, low volume irrigation, separate water meters, weather‐based irrigation controllers for
automatic systems and other low water use landscape design measures.
Program Goals: The regulations are designed to reduce indoor water use by at least 20%.
Landscapes must be designed to reduce the use of potable water to a quantity that does not
exceed between 55% to 70% of ETo for the landscape area. All new construction and
renovation projects required to apply for a building permit are subject to these requirements.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 3.65 under the Total Resource Cost
Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: The assumption is that on a per unit basis, the regulations
save 20% of indoor water use. Water use reductions for landscape projects will vary.
Demand Management Measure O – Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM G of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.1 – Public Information Programs ‐ that requires agencies to maintain an active
public information program to promote and educate customers about water conservation. This
program offers free indoor water conservation, landscape and irrigation design classes to
residents, contractors, and landscape professionals in the community.
Program Goals: CPAU offers several residential efficiency workshops each year, coordinates
landscape workshops through BAWSCA, Bay‐Friendly, and SCVWD, and advertises other local
water efficiency workshops to the community. SCVWD has offered water efficiency classes for
homeowners in Santa Clara County for nearly 20 years. The City began coordinating workshops
with BAWSCA in 2006. City staff partners with various agencies to coordinate an average of up
to ten residential efficiency workshops throughout the year, and frequently presents
information on water efficient practices at community events, conferences and professional
seminars. Participation targets below reflect the number of new City accounts participating
each year in water efficient landscape classes offered throughout the community. Homeowner
accounts that participate more than once are not included in the totals below.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 203.93 under the Total Resource
Cost Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and BAWSCA, as well as any administrative
costs borne by CPAU and BAWSCA.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.44 MGD or 160.6 million gallons of water annually.
Table 33: Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
1,500 4,236 3,044 1,172 386 196 391
Program Costs $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450
Demand Management Measure P – Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2008. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program offers rebates to residents, businesses and institutions
for installation of rain barrels and cisterns used to capture water for reuse in landscape
irrigation. By storing and diverting rainfall runoff from roofs, these devices reduce the
undesirable impacts of runoff that would otherwise flow swiftly into gutters and storm drains,
thus contributing to flooding and erosion problems in creeks. Due to the relatively small
volume, rain barrels are most commonly used as a secondary source of water for gardening in
residential areas. If larger water storage volumes are desired, larger tanks called cisterns can
be used to collect rooftop runoff. Rain barrels can be used to reduce the demand on the
municipal water system, especially during the hot summer months.
Program Goals: The primary goal of this program is to implement measures that reduce the
amount of runoff that flows into the storm drain system and improve the water quality of that
runoff. This program also assists the City in meeting its water efficiency goals by providing a
supplemental source of water for landscape irrigation, particularly when seasonal water
demands are highest.
Cost Effectiveness: The program is funded with revenue from monthly storm drainage fees.
This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as savings estimates
have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: This is a relatively new program offered by water utilities,
therefore savings assumptions cannot be quantified until pilot studies of actual installations can
be analyzed to estimate potential savings.
Demand Management Measure Q – Residential Graywater Reuse
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2009.
Description of Measure: Since the adoption of the State regulations in 2009 that permitted
installation and use of residential graywater systems, the City has seen several graywater
systems installed in its service area. Graywater includes water captured from bathroom sinks,
showers, and clothes washers, which is reused to irrigate plants. It can be viewed as a
beneficial tool for conservation since graywater provides a supplemental source of water for
landscape irrigation, particularly when seasonal demands are highest. Currently the City does
not offer any incentives for installation of a graywater system, but permits systems on a case‐
by‐case basis.
Program Goals: This program may assist the City with meeting its water efficiency goals. The
City is currently in the process of evaluating the graywater code and permitting processes for
implementation in Palo Alto. As more graywater systems are installed, the City hopes to
evaluate the water conservation savings potential from this measure.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings estimates have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: This is a relatively new program offered by water utilities,
therefore savings assumptions cannot be quantified until pilot studies of actual installations can
be analyzed to estimate potential savings.
Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability
Law
10631 (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to
seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable.
Provide data for each of the following:
(1) An average water year, (2) A single dry water year, (3) Multiple dry
wateryears.
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use,
given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe
plans to replace that source with alternative sources or water demand
management measures, to the extent practicable.
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next
three water years based on the driest three‐year historic sequence for the
agency's water supply.
Water Supply Reliability
The weather‐related reliability of the City’s water supply is very dependent upon the reliability
of SFPUC’s regional water supply system. The SFPUC defines reliability by the amount and
frequency of water delivery reductions (deficiencies) required to balance customer demands
with available supplies in droughts. The SFPUC plans its water deliveries anticipating that a
drought worse than the worst drought yet experienced may occur. This section discusses these
system‐wide deficiencies.
The SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy supply is vulnerable to periodic, short‐term outages. Due to the fact
that Hetch Hetchy water is not filtered, it is subject to strict water quality standards set by the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). As a result of weather events, turbidity levels
can exceed standards requiring the Hetch Hetchy supply to be shut off until levels drop to
within standards. Hetch Hetchy supply outages can last a week or longer. During these
periods, the entire SFPUC supply comes from the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant and the
Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, both of which are supplied by local reservoirs.
The City, working in cooperation with SFPUC and BAWSCA, completed several studies and
reports analyzing weather‐ and climate‐related reliability of the water supply. Several of these
are described in previous sections of this UWMP, including the following:
Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study (1999) – This study
examined the ability of the City’s water system to supply water during an 8‐hour
disruption of SFPUC supply. The study concluded the City should invest in certain capital
projects. These projects became part of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project, which is currently under construction.
The Water Supply Master Plan (2000) – The WSMP was a joint study by BAWSCA and
the SFPUC to address the future water supply needs of the 30 agencies and 2.3 million
people who are served via the SFPUC water system. The City was actively involved in
the development of this plan, participating on the WSMP Steering Committee. This plan
is further described below.
Alternative Emergency Water Supply Options Study (2001) – This study examined the
ability of the City’s distribution system to supply water during various lengths of supply
disruption (e.g., 1 day, 3‐days, 30 days) and included an analysis of the vulnerability of
the City’s water distribution system. The study concluded that the capital projects in
the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, specifically related to groundwater
wells, would result in the ability to supply sufficient water in disruptions of SFPUC
supply.
City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply & Storage Project Final Environmental
Impact Report (2007) – The City certified the EIR to locate a site and construct a 2.5
million gallon underground water reservoir and pump station in Palo Alto to meet
emergency water supply and storage needs. In addition to this water reservoir, the
project includes the siting and construction of several emergency supply wells and the
upgrade of five existing wells and the existing Mayfield Pump Station. The City is
currently in the construction phase for the project.
Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies
The City experienced severe droughts during 1976‐77 and 1987‐93. In response to these
droughts the City adopted a number of water conservation strategies. Full descriptions of the
City’s water conservation programs are included in Section 5, “Demand Management
Measures,” and in Appendix C, “CUWCC Best Management Practices (BMP) Reports.”
The magnitude of future supply deficiencies is difficult to estimate. The total amount of water
the SFPUC has available to deliver during a defined period of time is dependent on several
factors which generally reduce to a comparison of 1) the amount of water that is available to
the SFPUC system from natural runoff and reservoir storage and 2) the amount of that water
that must be released from the SFPUC’s system for commitments to purposes other than
customer deliveries (e.g., releases below Hetch Hetchy reservoirs to meet Raker Act and fishery
purposes).
The 1987‐93 drought profoundly highlighted the deficit between SFPUC’s water supplies and
the demands on the SFPUC system. Based on the 1987‐93 drought experience, the SFPUC
assumes its “firm” capability to be the amount the system can be expected to deliver during
historically experienced drought periods. In estimating this firm capability, the SFPUC assumes
the potential recurrence of a drought such as occurred during 1987‐93, plus an additional 18
months of limited water availability. The SFPUC used this “design drought” to develop the level
of service goals for the Water System Improvement Program of meeting at least 80% of
customer demands during periods of water shortage.
Reliability of the Regional Water System
The WSIP is a program to address system deficiencies primarily related to seismic vulnerability.
The SFPUC is currently in the construction phase for the regional WSIP and is on schedule to
complete the program in 2015. The WSIP provides goals and objectives to improve the delivery
reliability of the regional system, including water supply reliability. The goals and objectives of
the WSIP related to water supply are included in Table 34 below.
Table 34: Goals and Objectives of WSIP
Program Goal System Performance Objective
Water Supply –
meet customer
water needs in
non‐drought
and drought
periods
Meet average annual water demand of 265 million gallons per day
(MGD) from the SFPUC watersheds for retail and wholesale
customers during non‐drought years for system demands through
2018.
Meet dry‐year delivery needs through 2018 while limiting rationing to
a maximum 20 percent system‐wide reduction in water service
during extended droughts.
Diversify water supply options during non‐drought and drought
periods.
Improve use of new water sources and drought management,
including groundwater, recycled water, conservation, and transfers.
The adopted WSIP had several water supply elements to address the WSIP water supply goals
and objectives. The following provides the water supply elements for all year types and the
dry‐year projects of the adopted WSIP to augment all year type water supplies during drought.
Water Supply – All Year Types
The SFPUC historically has met demand in its service area in all year types from the three
watersheds that provide the source water for the SFPUC system:
Tuolumne River watershed
Alameda Creek watershed
San Mateo County watersheds
In general, 85 percent of the supply comes from the Tuolumne River supplies stored in the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the remaining 15 percent comes from the local watersheds
through the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. The
adopted WSIP retains this mix of water supply for all year types.
Water Supply – Dry‐Year Types
The adopted WSIP includes the following water supply projects to meet dry‐year demands with
no greater than 20 percent system‐wide rationing in any one year:
Restoration of Calaveras Reservoir capacity;
Restoration of Crystal Springs Reservoir capacity;
Westside Basin Groundwater Conjunctive Use;
Water Transfer with Modesto Irrigation District (MID) / Turlock Irrigation District (TID)
In order to achieve its target of meeting at least 80 percent of its customer demand during
droughts, the SFPUC must successfully implement the dry‐year water supply projects included
in the WSIP.
Based on the adopted WSIP, the available supplies for the SFPUC system under normal and dry
years is represented in Table 35.
Table 35: SFPUC System Water Availability – Year 2010 (AFY)
Multiple Dry Water Years
Average/Normal
Water Year
Single Dry
Water Year
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
296,800
100% of Normal
267,120
90% of Normal
267,120
90% of Normal
237,440
80% of Normal
237,440
80% of Normal
Projected SFPUC System Supply Reliability
The SFPUC has provided projected System Supply Reliability Based on Historical Hydrologic
Period representing the projected system supply reliability (Appendix J).42 This table assumes
that the wholesale customers purchase 184 MGD from the system through 2030 and the SFPUC
implements the dry‐year water supply projects included in the WSIP. The numbers represent
the wholesale share of available supply during historical year types per the Tier 1 Water
Shortage Allocation Plan. This table does not reflect any potential yield impacts from the
additional fishery flows required as part of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower
Crystal Springs Dam Improvements Project.
Impact of Recent SFPUC Actions on Dry Year Reliability of SFPUC Supplies
In adopting the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam
Improvements Project, the SFPUC committed to providing fishery flows below Calaveras Dam
and Lower Crystal Springs Dam as well as bypass flows below Alameda Creek Diversion Dam.
The fishery flow schedules for Alameda Creek and San Mateo Creek represent a potential
decrease in available water supply of an average annual 3.9 MGD and 3.5 MGD, respectively
with a total of 7.4 MGD average annually. These fishery flows could potentially create a
shortfall in meeting the SFPUC demands of 265 MGD and slightly increase the SFPUC’s dry‐year
water supply needs. If a shortfall occurs, it is anticipated at the completion of construction of
both the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements
project in approximately 2015 and 2013, respectively when the SFPUC will be required to
provide the fishery flows.
The adopted WSIP water supply objectives include (1) meeting a target delivery of 265 MGD
through 2018; and (2) rationing at no greater than 20 percent system‐wide in any one year of a
drought. As a result of the fishery flows, the SFPUC may not be able to meet these objectives
between 2013 and 2018 without a reduction in demand, an increase in rationing, or a
supplemental supply. The following describes these actions.
Reduction in Demand
The current projections for total system purchases through 2018 remain at or below 265 MGD.
In addition, in the last few years, SFPUC deliveries have been significantly below this level, as
illustrated in Table 36 below. If this trend continues, the SFPUC may not need 265 MGD from
its watersheds to meet purchase requests through 2018. As a result, the need for supplemental
supplies of 3.5 MGD starting in 2013 and increasing to 7.4 MGD in 2015 to offset the water
supply loss associated with fish releases may be less than anticipated.
42 Projected System Supply Reliability Based on Historical Hydrologic Period (from 2/22/10 letter from P. Kehoe to
Nicole Sandkulla, Senior Water Resources Engineer, BAWSCA).
Table 36: Water Deliveries in SFPUC Service Area
FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Total Deliveries (MGD) 247.5 257 254.1 243.4 225.2
Increase in Rationing
The adopted WSIP provides for a dry year water supply program that, when implemented,
would result in system‐wide rationing of no more than 20 percent. The PEIR identified the
following drought shortages during the “design drought”; 3.5 out of 8.5 year period would
require 10 percent rationing and 3 out of 8.5 years would require 20 percent rationing. If the
SFPUC did not develop a supplemental water supply in dry years to offset the effects of the
fishery flows on water supply, rationing would increase during dry years. If the SFPUC
experiences a water shortage between 2013 and 2018 in which rationing would need to be
imposed, rationing would increase by approximately 1 percent in shortage years. Rationing
during the design drought would increase by approximately 1 percent in rationing years.
Supplemental Supply
The SFPUC may be able to manage the water supply loss associated with the fishery flows
through the following actions and considerations:
Development of additional conservation and recycling
Development of additional groundwater supply
Water transfer from MID and/or TID
Increase in Tuolumne River supply
Revising the Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project capacity43
Development of a desalination project
43 The adopted WSIP included the Alameda Creek Fishery Enhancement project, since renamed the Upper Alameda
Creek Filter Gallery (UACFG) project, which had the stated purpose of recapturing downstream flows released
under a 1997 California Department of Fish and Game MOU. Implementation of the UACFG project was intended
to provide for no net loss of water supply as a result of the fishery flows bypassed from ACDD and/or released from
Calaveras Dam. At the time the PEIR was prepared, the UACFG was described in the context of recapturing up to
6300 AF per year. The UACFG will undergo a separate CEQA process in which all impacts associated with the
project will be analyzed fully.
Meeting the Level of Service Goal for Delivery Reliability
Through the level of service goals outlined in the WSIP, the SFPUC has assured its wholesale
customers that it is committed to meeting its contractual obligation to them of 184 MGD and
its delivery reliability goal of 265 MGD with no greater than 20 percent rationing in any one
year of a drought. In Resolution No. 10‐0175 adopted by the Commission on October 15, 2010,
the Commission directed staff to provide information to the Commission and the public by
March 31, 2011 on how the SFPUC has the capability to attain its water supply levels of service
and contractual obligations. This directive was in response to concerns expressed by the
Commission and the Wholesale Customers regarding the effect on water supply of the instream
flow releases required as a result of the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Project and
the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project. In summary, the SFPUC has a projected shortfall of
available water supply to meet its Level of Service goals and contractual obligations. The SFPUC
has stated that current decreased levels of demand keep this from being an immediate
problem, but that in the near future, the SFPUC must resolve these issues. Various activities
are underway by the SFPUC to resolve the shortfall problem. SFPUC staff will report back to the
Commission by August 31, 2011 to provide further information on actions to resolve the
shortfall problem.
2018 Interim Supply Limitation
As part of its adoption of the WSIP in October 2008, the SFPUC adopted a water supply
element, the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL), to limit sales from the SFPUC watersheds to an
average annual of 265 MGD through 2018. See Section 3, “System Supplies,” under “SFPUC
Supply.” The wholesale customers’ collective allocation under the ISL is 184 MGD, and San
Francisco’s allocation is 81 MGD. The City’s portion of the wholesale allocation is 14.70 MGD.
Although the wholesale customers did not agree to the ISL, the WSA provides a framework for
administering the ISL. The SFPUC is in the process of developing the methodology and amount
of the volume‐based charge if the ISL is exceeded. The Environmental Enhancement Surcharge
will become effective beginning FY 2012.
BAWSCA has developed a strategy to address each of its member agencies’ unmet needs
through its Water Conservation Implementation Plan and the Long‐term Reliable Water Supply
Strategy, separately addressed herein.
As stated in the WSA, the wholesale customers do not concede the legality of the Commission’s
establishment of the ISAs and Environmental Enhancement Surcharge and expressly retain the
right to challenge either or both, if and when imposed, in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Climate Change
The issue of climate change has become an important factor in water resources planning in the
State, although the extent and precise effects of climate change remain uncertain. As
described by the SFPUC in its October 2009 Final Water Supply Availability Study for the City
and County of San Francisco, there is evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse
gasses have caused and will continue to cause a rise in temperatures around the world that
could result in a wide range of changes in climate patterns. These changes are expected to
have a direct effect on water resources in California. Climate change could result in the
following types of water resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay
Area:
Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a
shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne
River basin, and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year;
Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased
amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow;
Long‐term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that
could affect water quality;
Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion;
Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some
fisheries and water quality;
Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and
Changes in urban and agricultural water demand.
According to the SFPUC’S October 2009 study, other than the general trends listed above, there
is no clear scientific consensus on exactly how climate change will quantitatively affect the
state’s water supplies, and current models of water systems in California generally do not
reflect the potential effects of climate change.
Initial climate change modeling completed by the SFPUC indicates that about seven percent of
runoff currently draining into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir will shift from the spring and summer
seasons to the fall and winter seasons in the Hetch Hetchy basin by 2025. This percentage is
within the current interannual variation in runoff and is within the range accounted for during
normal runoff forecasting and existing reservoir management practices. The predicted shift in
runoff timing is similar to the results found by other researchers modeling water resource
impacts in the Sierra Nevada due to warming trends associated with climate change.
The SFPUC has stated that based on this preliminary analysis, the potential impacts of climate
change are not expected to affect the water supply available from the San Francisco Regional
Water System (RWS) or the or the overall operation of the RWS through 2030.
The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring
regular updating to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and
human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. To refine its climate change
analysis and expand the range of climate parameters being evaluated, as well as expand the
timeframes being considered, the SFPUC is currently undertaking two additional studies. The
first utilizes a newly calibrated hydrologic model of the Hetch Hetchy watershed to explore
sensitivities of inflow to different climate change scenarios involving changes in air temperature
and precipitation. The second study will seek to utilize state‐of‐the‐art climate modeling
techniques in conjunction with water system modeling tools to more fully explore potential
effects of climate change on the SFPUC water system as a whole. Both analyses will consider
potential effects through the year 2100.
Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply
The City has completed several studies regarding water reliability. These studies are described
in previous sections. Of note, the City is in the construction phase of the Emergency Water
Supply and Storage Project and is in the environmental review phase of the Palo Alto Phase 3
recycled water project
In addition, the City is continuing to evaluate other water supply alternatives as part of its
ongoing Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP). This analysis will include the impact of long‐
term water supply shortage on the total water supply.
Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response
to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water
supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions that are applicable to
each stage.
Background
Except for recycled water, the City does not currently produce any of its own water supplies,
but is dependent upon its suppliers. The City’s primary supplier is the SFPUC. The SFPUC is the
only supplier in normal years. The City’s wells are in the process of being refurbished and the
City is drilling three new wells, but the wells will remain standby wells for use during
emergencies and potentially to supplement the SFPUC supply during a severe drought. The
SCVWD manages the county’s groundwater and levies a pump tax for all water produced by the
wells. The City has also approved and signed a mutual aid agreement for emergency water
supplies with California’s Water Agency Response Network (Coastal group) that has over 75
signatories.
To meet the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and for the purposes
of this document, a distinction will be made between a catastrophic interruption of water
supplies and a water shortage due to drought. A catastrophic interruption of water supplies
may occur due to natural disaster such as an earthquake or due to a sudden problem with
water quality or because of sabotage or terrorism. A water shortage due to drought is the
more likely occurrence. The City has experienced two drought water shortages in the past 35
years, in l976‐77 and from l987 to l993.
Catastrophic Interruption of Supply
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and
implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but
not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster.
Regional System Reliability
The City has been very active in working with the SFPUC to analyze the supply reliability needs
of the SFPUC system and has begun to implement the most urgent reliability improvements.
The City participated in San Francisco’s Facility Reliability Study completed in 1999. This study
was conducted by SFPUC to examine the vulnerability of its system to catastrophic events (e.g.,
earthquakes). The City was represented on the BAWSCA Facility Reliability Committee that was
actively involved in the development of this study.
The City also participated in the development of the BAWSCA Local Resources Management
Program. This project examined methods for developing local projects that increase supply and
reliability within the SFPUC service territory.
The City was actively involved in the review of the SFPUC System Vulnerability Report. This
study examined the vulnerability of the SFPUC system to catastrophic events (e.g.,
earthquakes). The study, released in January 2000, indicated that some areas in the regional
system could be without water for up to 60 days.
To address these deficiencies, the SFPUC developed the WSIP to repair and upgrade the
regional system. The program contains projects that will repair, replace and seismically
upgrade the regional water system’s aging pipelines and tunnels, reservoirs and dams. The City
has been actively involved with BAWSCA in the review of the WSIP as it is developed, revised
and approved.
Planning, Training and Exercise
Following San Francisco’s experience with the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the SFPUC created
a departmental SFPUC Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The SFPUC EOP, originally released in
1992, has been updated on average every two years. The latest EOP update will be released in
Spring 2011. The EOP addresses a broad range of potential emergency situations that may
affect the SFPUC, and it supplements the City and County of San Francisco’s EOP, which was
prepared by the Department of Emergency Management and last updated in 2008. Specifically,
the purpose of the SFPUC EOP is to describe the SFPUC’s emergency management organization,
roles and responsibilities and establish emergency policies and procedures.
In addition, SFPUC divisions and bureaus have their own EOPs that are in alignment with the
SFPUC EOP and describe their respective emergency management organization, roles and
responsibilities and emergency policies and procedures. The SFPUC tests its emergency plans
on a regular basis by conducting emergency exercises. Through these exercises the SFPUC
learns how well the plans will or will not work in response to an emergency. Plan
improvements are based on exercise and sometime real world event response and evaluation.
Also, the SFPUC has an emergency response training plan that is based on federal, state and
local standards and exercise and incident improvement plans. SFPUC employees have
emergency training requirements that are based on their individual emergency response roles.
Emergency Drinking Water Planning
In February 2005, the SFPUC Water Quality Bureau published a City Emergency Drinking Water
Alternatives report. The purpose of this project was to develop a plan for supplying emergency
drinking water in the City after damage and/or contamination of the SFPUC raw and/or treated
water systems resulting from a major disaster. The report addresses immediate response after
a major disaster. Since the publication of this report, the SFPUC has implemented a number of
projects to increase its capability to support the provision of emergency drinking water during
an emergency. These projects include:
Public Information and materials for home and business
Designation and identification of 67 emergency drinking water hydrants throughout San
Francisco
Purchase of emergency related equipment including water bladders and water bagging
machines to help with distribution post disaster
Coordinated planning with City Departments, neighboring jurisdictions and other public
and private partners to maximize resources and supplies for emergency response
With respect to emergency response for the SFPUC Regional Water System, the SFPUC has
prepared the SFPUC Regional Water System Emergency Response and Recovery Plan (ERRP),
completed in 2003 and updated in 2006. The purpose of this plan is to describe the SFPUC RWS
emergency management organizations, staff roles and responsibilities within those
organizations, and emergency management procedures. This contingency plan addresses how
to respond to and recover from a major RWS seismic event or other major disaster. The ERRP
complements the other SFPUC emergency operations plans at the Department, Division and
Bureau levels for major system emergencies.
The SFPUC has also prepared an SFPUC‐Suburban Customer Water Supply Emergency
Operations and Notification Plan. The plan was first prepared in 1996 and has been updated
several times – most recently in July of 2010. The purpose of this plan is to provide contact
information, procedures and guidelines to be implemented by the following entities when a
potential or actual water supply problem arises: the SFPUC Water Supply and Treatment
Division, Water Quality Bureau, SFPUC wholesale customers, BAWSCA, and City Distribution
Division (considered to be a customer for the purposes of this plan). For the purposes of this
plan, water quality issues are treated as potential or actual supply problems.
Power Outage Preparedness and Response
SFPUC’s water transmission system is primarily gravity fed, from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to
the City and County of San Francisco. Within San Francisco’s in‐city distribution system, the key
pump stations have generators in place and all others have connections in place that would
allow portable generators to be used.
Although water conveyance throughout the regional system would not be greatly impacted by
power outages because it is gravity fed, the SFPUC has prepared for potential regional power
outages as follows:
The Tesla disinfection facility, the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, and the San
Antonio Pump Station, have backup power in place in the form of generators or diesel
powered pumps. Additionally, both the Sunol Treatment Plant and the San Antonio
Pump Station would not be impacted by a failure of the regional power grid because it
runs off of the SFPUC hydro‐power generated by the regional system
Both the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant and the Baden Pump Station have backup
generators in place.
Additionally, the WSIP includes projects which will expand the SFPUC’s ability to remain
in operation during power outages and other emergency situations.
Capital Projects for Seismic Reliability and Overall System Reliability
The SFPUC is undertaking the WSIP to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to
meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water
supply. As illustrated previously in Figure 1, the WSIP include several projects located in San
Francisco to improve the seismic reliability of the in‐city distribution system, as well as many
projects related to the SFPUC RWS to address both seismic reliability and overall system
reliability. All WSIP projects are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition to the
improvements that will come from the WSIP, San Francisco has already constructed the
following system interties for use during catastrophic emergencies, short‐term facility
maintenance and upgrade activities, and in times of water shortages:
A 40 MGD system intertie between the SFPUC and the SCVWD (Milpitas Intertie); and
One permanent and one temporary intertie to the South Bay Aqueduct, which would
enable the SFPUC to receive State Water Project water.
The WSIP includes intertie projects, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)‐
Hayward‐SFPUC Intertie. The SFPUC and EBMUD have completed construction of this 30 MGD
intertie between their two systems in the City of Hayward, as part of the WSIP.
The WSIP also includes projects related to standby power facilities at various locations. These
projects will provide for standby electrical power at six critical facilities to allow these facilities
to remain in operation during power outages and other emergency situations. Permanent
engine generators will be provided at four locations (San Pedro Valve Lot, Millbrae Facility,
Alameda West, and Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant), while hookups for portable engine
generators will be provided at two locations (San Antonio Reservoir and Calaveras Reservoir).
Local Distribution System Reliability
Given the vulnerabilities of the regional water system managed by the SFPUC, the City has
examined how it would fare if the system sustained damage due to a catastrophic emergency
such as a large earthquake. The City has completed several studies to identify any vulnerability
in its local distribution system and to identify solutions to reduce or eliminate those
vulnerabilities. Those studies are described above in the “Groundwater” section of Section 3,
“System Supplies.”
These studies identified a deficiency in the ability of the City’s local system to meet water
demands during a temporary shutoff of water from the regional water system operated by the
SFPUC. The California Department of Health Services issued a recommendation that local
systems be capable of providing water supplies to meet the system’s water demands for an 8‐
hour period in addition to having enough water in storage to meet fire suppression demands.
The City’s system only has the ability to meet 2.5 hours of the City’s water demands while
maintaining sufficient reserve for fire flows.
The City Council has approved a capital improvement program consisting of several
improvements related to addressing the City’s emergency water supply deficiency including
rehabilitating the five existing wells, drilling up to three new wells, and building an additional
water storage reservoir. The City is in the process of implementing those improvements and is
currently in the construction stage of siting a new reservoir and new groundwater wells.
The City also maintains several critical interconnections with neighboring water utilities as
shown in Table 37. These interties can be activated during critical events to ensure water
supplies are not impacted and also to provide mutual aid to neighboring communities
Table 37: Interties with other Agencies
Name Number Diameter (inches)
East Palo Alto 1 6
Mountain 2 6
Stanford 2 8
Purissima Hills WD 2 8,12
Emergency Response Plan
Response to a catastrophic interruption of supply is handled through a series of interconnected
plans. All Disaster or Act of War Plans, from the state to local levels, use the Federal Civil
Defense and Emergency Planning systems as role models with additions that take into
consideration any unique conditions or situations that may exist within their jurisdictions.
At the national level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) controls all functions
of Civil Defense or Emergency Planning for the Federal Government. FEMA will not assume
control of an emergency until the President declares a State of Emergency or an Act of War
occurs. At that point FEMA will assume control through the State of California Office of
Emergency Services (State OES) and make available all of its resources.
At the state level, the State OES will control any disaster within the state and make its resources
available after a State of Disaster has been declared by the governor. The State OES further
controls the Master Mutual Aid Agreement that can also be used in a local disaster (the City is a
member of California’s Water Agency Response Network, Region 2, a mutual aid system for
water utilities, in accordance with State requirements).
At the county level, the Santa Clara County OES will control the unincorporated areas of the
County. It will coordinate mutual aid within the County and act as an intermediary between
local governments or utilities and the State mutual aid office.
On the city level, the City will control all emergencies according to its Emergency Response
Plan. The Mayor, City Council or City Manager may declare an emergency at which time
representatives of all City departments will report to the Emergency Operations Center.
The City’s Emergency Response Plan incorporates the CPAU Water, Gas and Wastewater
Operations Emergency Response Plan (the UER Plan), which covers any emergency curtailment
of water supplies. The UER Plan is a detailed outline of actions to be taken and procedures to
be followed by utility personnel in event of a water emergency. This plan is maintained in the
office of Water, Gas and Wastewater Operations and must be updated every 12 months.
The UER Plan is designed as both an outline and a procedures manual. It covers the following
primary functions:
1) Notification Procedures
2) Water Mutual Aid Agreement
3) Radio/Telephone /Communications
4) Water Receiving Station and Reservoir Check List
5) Boil Water Notifications
6) Highest Water Use Customer Load Reduction List
7) Water Interconnect Locations
8) Disinfecting of Water Mains
All CPAU personnel whose duties include work on the system through maintenance or
construction operations, or as Utilities Dispatchers, are highly trained and experienced in
performing their normal or “common emergency” duties. If a disaster or Act of War were to
occur, the City’s construction standards may have to be lowered to make temporary repairs to
expedite the restoration of the system, but the procedures and safety rules by which the work
would be accomplished will not change. These temporary repairs would be upgraded and
made permanent or replaced, as necessary, at a later date. The City’s primary concern is the
safety of the general public and all City personnel.
To that end, CPAU is in the process of acquiring diesel emergency power generation equipment
in order to enhance the water system response reliability during a catastrophic seismic event
causing severance from the City’s primary supply source. Lease acquisition of these emergency
generators will fulfill this reliability goal for the medium and the long‐term. At the same time,
given the uncertainty of the future, acquisition through lease agreements for these emergency
gen sets will reduce the City’s risk of generator inoperability.
Potential Applicable Scenarios for the use of the emergency generators:
1. Supply issue ‐ Hetch Hetchy complete shutdown; no water supply source other than City
wells and reservoirs.
2. Transmission issue – Complete power grid failure; no way to deliver water to Foothills.
Water Shortage Contingency Analysis
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(4) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices
during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of
potable water for street cleaning.
(5) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban
water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its
water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are
appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction
consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply.
(6) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable.
Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management
The City has had considerable experience implementing action plans during a period of water
shortage, such as a drought. The City has always been able to comply with any rationing
requirement imposed by SFPUC. During the 1976 to 1977 drought period, the City achieved
reductions in citywide consumption of 16% in FY 1976‐77 and 37% in FY 1977‐78 compared to
consumption in FY 1975‐76. In the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City’s consumption was
lower than consumption in 1987, the year just before SFPUC instituted mandatory rationing, by
from 19% (in FY 1988‐89) to over 35% (in FY 1991‐92). In response to the voluntary 10% call for
rationing in 2008‐2009, the City responded with reductions of approximately 18% relative to
2004 consumption.
During these periods of water shortage, the community has responded exceedingly well to
requests to use water in the most efficient way possible. As a result of experiencing these
drought‐time water supply shortages, many residents and businesses have implemented
permanent improvements in water use efficiency.
During a water shortage period, the Director of Utilities is responsible for executing the Water
Shortage Contingency Plan. Representatives from appropriate City Departments and Utilities
Divisions would need to be involved to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. Additional
resources will need to be dedicated to this effort both for internal and external execution of the
plan.
A key element to developing water shortage contingency plans for the City is close coordination
and cooperation with SFPUC, BAWSCA, and the SCVWD. It is critical to develop a coherent and
coordinated regional response to water shortages in order to provide a consistent message to
customers.
Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan
Tier 1 Drought Allocations
In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers and San Francisco adopted a Water
Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and
wholesale customers during system‐wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier 1 Plan”)44. The Tier
1 Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any
wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water
“banked” by a wholesale customer, through reductions in usage greater than required, may
also be transferred.
The Tier 1 Plan, which allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers
collectively, distributes water based on the level of shortage:
Table 38: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water
Share of Available Water Level of System Wide Reduction in
Water Use Required SFPUC Share Wholesale Customer Share
5% or less
6% through 10%
11% through 15%
16% through 20%
35.5%
36.0%
37.0%
37.5%
64.5%
64.0%
63.0%
62.5%
The Tier 1 Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30th, 2034, unless
extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers.
44 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply
Agreement with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP.
Tier 2 Drought Allocations
The wholesale customers have negotiated and adopted the “Tier 2 Plan”, which allocates the
collective wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. This Tier 2
allocation is based on a formula that takes multiple factors for each wholesale customer into
account, including:
Individual Supply Guarantee;
Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and
Residential per capita use.
Under the Tier 2 Plan, the wholesale customers’ shares will be allocated among them in
proportion to each wholesale customer’s Allocation Basis, which is the weighted average of two
components. The first component is the wholesale customer’s Individual Supply Guarantee and
is fixed. The second component, the Base/Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated
using the monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for
each of the wholesale customers for all available water supplies. The second component is
accorded twice the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis.
Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a
maximum cutback level, and a sufficient supply for certain wholesale customers.
The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all wholesale
customers’ Allocation Bases to determine each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The
final shortage allocation for each wholesale customer is determined by multiplying the amount
of water available to the wholesale customers’ collectively under the Tier 1 Plan, by the
wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor.
The Tier 2 Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in
preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the wholesale customers change
their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other
water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita
water use), the Allocation Factor for each wholesale customer will also change. However, for
long‐term planning purposes, the City is using the value identified in the Tier 2 Plan adopted by
the City Council, as calculated for FY 2009. Table 39 below illustrates how much water would
be available to Palo Alto from the regional system under different reduction scenario’s using
actual water demand from FY 2009.
Table 39: Palo Alto Share of Available Water – AFY
Current Deliveries During Multiple Years Demand
(FY 2009)
One Critical
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
System‐wide Shortage 0% 10% 10% 20% 20%
BAWSCA Allocation 182,885 164,596 164,596 133,796 133,796
City of Palo Alto 13,026 11,723 11,723 10,021 10,021
Percent of Normal 100% 90.00% 90.00% 76.94% 76.94%
The Tier 2 Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers.
Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning
The City’s primary response to a water supply shortage will be to reduce consumption. The
City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the response at four water supply shortage
stages. (Water use restrictions discussed in these stages can be found in Appendix H)
- Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and
enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances.
- In Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of
some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented.
- Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency
water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage
II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions.
In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters.
- Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies.
Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach
activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a
restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented.
Water Shortage Mitigation Options
Water shortage mitigation options can be classified under two categories: Supply Side Options
and Demand Side Options. This section provides descriptions of many different actions and
activities that are possible in reaction to a water supply shortage situation. The City’s response
to drought‐time shortages depends upon the severity of the shortage. Following this section,
specific actions are outlined for the various stages of a potential shortage.
Supply Side Options
The City’s options to increase its short‐term water supply are limited. The City’s long‐term
supply options are discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies.” The section below discusses
short‐term alternatives to increase supply in the event of a water supply shortage.
City Wells
The status of the City’s emergency wells is discussed in the Groundwater area of Section 3,
“System Supplies.” During a drought period, it would be possible to use some water from the
existing or new wells to supplement the supply from the SFPUC. However, no decision has
been made to use the groundwater for this purpose.
Recycled Water
During a drought or a short‐term water emergency, recycled water would be available to the
City, however, a wide distribution of recycled water would require substantial infrastructure
that would be difficult to construct in a short period of time. The City itself or private
companies with tanker trucks can obtain permits to utilize recycled water from the RWQCP.
These companies can pick up recycled water and deliver it to customers who will pay for this
service. Public awareness could be enhanced by greater publicity of the availability of this
alternative to customers. At the same time, the availability of recycled water will be balanced
with the need to comply with all regulations and laws surrounding the use of recycled water.
This recycled water would be available except in a catastrophic disaster (severe earthquake)
that severs all sources of water (SFPUC, wells and storage) to the system thereby eliminating
the source of water to the RWQCP. However, in the event of a severe earthquake the delivery
of recycled water would be a low priority.
Water Purchases from Other Suppliers
The City could conceivably purchase water from a new supplier in an extreme water supply
shortage situation. However, any such purchase would have to be consistent with the
requirements specified in the WSA45 and be coordinated with all other jurisdictions between
the source and the City to ensure the supply meets deliverability requirements. The SFPUC has
made such purchases of water from various suppliers in times of water shortages. The City and
all other BAWSCA member agencies have received this water through the SFPUC delivery
systems. It is unlikely that the City could negotiate a better deal than the SFPUC or BAWSCA in
these extremely complicated arrangements, and therefore it is unlikely that the City would seek
to purchase water on its own. The City is a participant in several regional efforts to evaluate
and develop new supply sources, including purchasing water from other sources. The SFPUC
system has several interties with adjacent water agencies, including EBMUD and the SCVWD.
45 WSA, Section 3.12
These interties could be used to “wheel” water that is purchased from other sources or
agencies.
Demand Side Options
In droughts, the City expects to achieve significant amounts of demand reduction through its
use of demand side options, or DMMs, as that term is used in the California Water Code. (See,
for example, §§ 371, 10631.) These options include a combination of information outreach
programs, drought rate schedules, demand side programs and water use restrictions.
Demand Side Management Programs:
Demand side management programs can be offered using many different program design
options and delivery mechanisms. Some examples are listed below.
Information Outreach Programs
When customers are asked to reduce their water consumption, they will be provided
information on ways to achieve the reduction. Informational outreach efforts address this need
by communicating to the customers how best to prioritize their water use needs and
implement alternative ways to receive the same level of service while using less water.
Information and public outreach programs include utility bill inserts, information on CPAU’s
website, local print media campaigns, commercial targeted mailings, workshops and
demonstrations, fact sheets on conservation technologies and practices, and coordination with
product manufacturers and suppliers.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
In a persistent water shortage, most customers will take the “quick and easy” actions early on.
More complex and expensive incentive programs to provide demand side management would
be needed to achieve additional results. Although incentive programs require time to develop
and promote, they can result in significant water savings. Depending upon current market
saturations, some programs such as delivery of relatively inexpensive hardware (e.g. low‐flow
faucet aerators and showerheads) and services such as leak detection and irrigation system
audits can offer quick drought‐time savings. Other programs may include a toilet rebate
program or incentives to replace high water use landscapes with water efficient landscape
designs and installation of efficient irrigation hardware.
Customer Water Use Audit Programs
Water audits are provided as an informational service to customers and typically include an
individualized, one‐on‐one analysis and site‐specific recommendations for both indoor and
outdoor water efficiency improvements. Audits can be enhanced by the delivery of relevant,
action‐oriented information the customer can use to change behavioral practices or participate
in additional audit or rebate programs. In a water emergency or shortage, additional staff
would be needed to provide water audits, rebate program administration, and outreach
assistance to residential and commercial customers. These personnel could be temporary or
contract employees.
Drought Rate Schedules
Pricing is one of the most powerful tools that a utility can use to promote its conservation goals.
Certain rate structures as well as water allotment plans can be developed to encourage
conservation. Criteria to consider include those listed in Appendix G, “Criteria to Evaluate
Water Shortage Response Plan.” These criteria have different weights depending on the water
reduction goals. While each criterion relates to an important objective, certain criteria need to
be balanced against one another. For example, the ability to meet the “water usage reduction”
criterion is impacted by the “cost minimizing” criterion with respect to enforcement and
administrative staffing costs. Similarly, the “equity” criterion may involve the use of individual
historical data or square footage or census data that may be unavailable except at great
expense. Thus any rate structure or water allotment plan can be viewed as a balance between
partly conflicting objectives in order to deal with the diversity of water needs and consumption
patterns by Palo Alto residents and businesses.
Rate‐based incentives have proved both efficient and effective during past water shortage
periods. Based on the amount of reduction required by the SFPUC and the capabilities and
limitations of the City’s computerized billing system, strategies will be determined for each
customer class.
In determining drought rate structures, the most likely division is of single‐family residential
customers as one basic group and all other customer classes in another. The number of tiers in
the schedules, the increase in cost per unit and the amount of a “penalty” rate would be set
according to the required amount of water reduction.
Customer Class Targets
Customer class targets will mirror the required indoor/outdoor water reduction goals that may
be established during a drought. However, whether there will be different rate schedules for
each customer class or different rate increase percentages applied to existing customer rate
classes will be determined by: (a) the severity of the water shortage, and (b) the capabilities
and limitations of the utility billing system. Experience has shown that separating the single‐
family residential customers – which are more homogeneous than any other customer group –
from all other customer groups is generally the only distinction needed46.
Allocation/Allotment Methods
Any allocation/allotment plan or rate incentive plan would take into consideration the criteria
listed in Appendix G. These criteria will be a guide to selecting the most efficient and effective
water use reduction method under the particular circumstances of a specific drought situation.
46 The City will design rates and Class targets to achieve the highest possible water savings. Any changes will be
consistent with “cost of service” principles and satisfy Proposition 218 requirements.
Allocations Based on Percentage of Past Use
Plans that base a customer’s allotment on a percentage of past use are sometimes perceived as
fair and easy to administer. However, these plans have three significant shortcomings. First,
selection of a base year is problematic. There have been two water shortage periods in the City
since l976. It would be difficult to pick a base year unaffected by shortage year programs on
the one hand, or gradually increasing water use after a drought (the “rebound effect”) on the
other. The second problem is that each year the turnover of new accounts is approximately 20
to 30% (mostly multi‐family residents). In addition, many businesses have changed their
practices to some extent over the years. Therefore to use this plan in 2010 and beyond would
mean that a large percentage of water customers would have an allotment based on a previous
occupant’s usage, a previous operation, or some alternative situation. Handling the large
volume of such cases can create administrative difficulties and perceptions of inequities as
revised or new allocations are assigned to these customers. The third major flaw in the
“percent of past use” concept is that, regardless of base year selected, historically
conservation‐minded customers may feel penalized for their past efforts while profligate users
may have too large an allocation.
Equal Allotment for Each Home (for single‐family residential)
This plan would set an identical allotment for each home designed to meet the target reduction
for the class. The first tier in the rate structure would be set at this target amount. The second
tier would be a “buffer” tier designed to accommodate seasonal water needs. The third and
last tier would be a penalty rate block price considerably higher than the first two tiers.
Since all homes would be treated the same, this plan suggests equity and fairness. In addition,
it would be inexpensive to administer and easy to understand and implement. However, it
could be perceived as unfair by relatively large families or customers with large lots.
Under this plan, hardship exemptions would be limited to those who require more water for
health or safety reasons. No additional allowances would be provided for the number of
persons living in the household or the landscaping requirements of the particular size lot.
Enforcement of this plan would involve installing a flow restrictor on those customers who
continue to exceed the allotment beyond a two‐month period.
Complete Per Capita Allotment Plan (for single‐family residential)
Under this plan each person would be allotted a certain amount of water per month. In
addition, each household would be allotted a certain amount of water per month for other
essential needs including a base minimum amount for outdoor watering of shrubs and trees.
Per capita information would be based on information supplied by the customers through a
special mailing. The strength of this plan is that it would probably be more acceptable to the
community than the equal allotment per household plan because it takes into account the
relationship between water usage and the number of persons living in a household. Its
weaknesses are the inability of the Utilities Customer Information System to record or manage
“per capita” data and verification of per capita information.
Default Per Capita Allotment Plan (for single‐family residential)
Under this plan each household would receive an allotment that would be sufficient for families
of a default size. For households over that size, an additional amount would be allotted per
month for the number of people over the default size. This plan is easier to administer than a
complete per capita plan since the number of data entries is significantly reduced. Based on
year 2000 population estimates, of the approximately 15,000 single‐family residential accounts,
about 10,000 accounts have households of three persons or fewer. Therefore, if the default
size were three persons, only about 5,000 accounts would need additional allotments. Thus the
plan has the advantage of reduced implementation cost and is administratively more feasible
than the complete per capita allotment. The plan’s weakness is its lack of detail or fine‐tuning
for households under the default size, which may be perceived as unfair by larger households.
Mandatory Water Rationing Plans Applicable to Multi‐Family Accounts, Business, and City
Departments
Due to the differences between customer classes, it is difficult to construct rationing plans that
meet all the criteria listed in Appendix G. During the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City
introduced Baseline Consumption Allowances (BCAs) for all customer classes except single‐
family residential accounts. This includes multi‐family residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional, and city facilities accounts. The BCA was intended to represent the indoor
consumption of each customer.
It is important for any allocation plan to take into account the specific needs of these customer
classes because of their diversity and unique requirements. The BCA does this. Rate structures
using the BCAs can be constructed as appropriate to meet the reduction targets required and to
provide the economic incentive necessary to prompt customer action. And, the targets and the
associated rate block prices could be changed as the reduction requirement changes.
Weaknesses of this method are that it may not accurately represent indoor water use. For
example, exemptions would have to be considered for customers with cooling towers, since
lack of water for cooling towers would effectively end the customers’ ability to cool their
building interiors, resulting in possible health and safety impacts of employees. Another
alternative in extreme cases (Stage 3 or higher) could be an allocation per fixture plus a cooling
tower credit, which is similar to the per capita method for residences.
Excessive Use Penalties
Penalties for excessive use are expected to vary according to the customer class. For single‐
family residential customers exceeding percent‐of‐past‐use, equal‐allotment‐per‐home, or per
capita water use, the penalty could be installation of a flow restrictor when usage continued to
exceed the allotment beyond a 2‐month period or specifically‐designed punitive drought rates.
Enforcement of this penalty would only occur after customers had been notified and any
reasonable appeals had been processed.
For customers under a BCA allotment (all classes except single family residential), the primary
penalty and enforcement mechanism is in the rate structure itself. At six to ten times the basic
per unit cost, excessive use results in an immediate financial penalty to the customer.
Water Use Prohibitions, Mandatory Restrictions
Adopting water use restrictions is another way to manage how customers use a limited
resource. Restrictions can be classified as those preventing water waste, those “setting a tone”,
and those that prohibit low priority use in times of severe shortages.
Again, close coordination with SFPUC is necessary. One of the considerations for selecting
which water use restriction ordinances to adopt is what our suppliers recommend for the
region. Both the SFPUC and SCVWD provide recommendations, and the City will attempt to
follow those recommendations so that regional consistency is achieved.
The City’s ability to enforce restrictions is also a critical variable in the selection of water use
regulations. For restrictions to be credible and obeyed, they must be enforceable and the City
must be willing to enforce them. Therefore certain restrictions, such as limits on indoor uses
such as showering, are not practical.
Water use restrictions are achieved by using the methods, prohibitions and penalties described
in the sections below. Appendix H lists permanent water use restrictions that the City currently
has in place and those that could be adopted on an emergency basis in times of water
shortage47.
Stages of Action
Actions to be taken in response to a water shortage depend on the severity of the shortage.
The staged responses (Stage I to Stage IV) depend to some extent upon the local conditions and
the length of time that customers have had to focus their attention on the water shortage. For
each stage noted below, activity levels in several key areas are described. Reduction targets
referred to below would use the most recent non‐drought year as the base year. If a different
base year were to be selected, the programs might require modification. In all stages, action
will be taken to ensure City facility water use is reduced by the appropriate amount.
Some factors which influence the effectiveness of any water management plan include: (1) the
customer’s behavior and perception of the need to conserve; (2) weather variables; (3) the
length of the drought; (4) the customer’s economic situation; (5) the extent to which the City
47 Section 12.32.015 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, pertaining to emergency water use regulations, previously
codified and containing portions of Ordinance Nos. 3960, 3984 and 4038, was suspended, but specifically not
repealed, by Ordinance No. 4150, § 2. In pertinent part, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4150 states that Section
12.32.015 is "suspended until such time as water shortage emergency conditions shall be subsequently found,
determined, and declared by the Council to exist."
achieves its utility revenue targets; (6) the percentage of exemptions or variances granted; (7)
the role of the media; and (8) the customer’s acceptance of the need for the program.
One lesson learned from the 1987‐93 drought is that the longer the water shortage, the greater
the water use reduction achieved. This is likely due to a combination of factors including: (1)
acknowledgement by the community that the situation is serious since it seems to be lasting;
(2) realization that maintaining green lawns or other relatively unimportant landscaping is
costly and not necessarily in the community’s interest; (3) time for more people to get the
message, a culture change over time; (4) increasing availability of conservation devices in local
stores; (5) increasing examples of successful water conservation methods; and (6) more
sophisticated response from the City as experience is gained.
Therefore, there is a need for some flexibility in selecting the exact strategy to be used to
respond to a particular water shortage situation. Even with the same reduction target, the
strategy in the first year of a drought would be different than that recommended for an
additional year of a long running drought. It is very important early in a drought period to
determine outreach messages and policy directions using a longer‐term perspective. In this
way, communications with customers throughout the drought period will be consistent and
appropriate.
STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings
The SFPUC requested voluntary reductions in this range in 1987, and again in 2009, which the
City was able to achieve. In those years, SFPUC did not impose rationing.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
The City provides ongoing informational outreach and audit programs. At this water shortage
stage, the focus of these programs would be on water saving information. A low level media
information campaign would begin with the emphasis on reducing waste. As water
consumption is monitored, the level of emphasis would be adjusted in order to meet the
reduction goal.
The City has permanent ordinances in place that prohibit the waste of water. These ordinances
are sufficient for this stage of water shortage. Enforcement would be on an “as reported” basis
and mostly via reminder notices.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and
augmented, to the extent necessary to provide the savings required by the City’s water
supplier. These programs may include a toilet rebate program or incentives to remove lawn
turf for less water‐thirsty landscaping or to install advanced irrigation controllers. The City
would continue to monitor programs being developed by other utilities in order to take
advantage of regional momentum and shorten internal development time.
Drought Rate Structures
No special drought rate structure is needed at this water shortage stage. The City’s standard
single‐family rate structure already encourages conservation by having a relatively small fixed
charge and increasing block rates based on water consumption.
STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings
The City was able to achieve this level of water reduction (19.1%) when rationing was imposed
by the SFPUC in FY 1989. The program used at that time is basically the one outlined below.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
The frequency of advertising and events comprising the information campaign would be
increased. Water kits with low‐cost conservation devices will be available to customers.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and
augmented, to the extent necessary to provide the savings required by the City’s water
supplier. These programs may include incentives for replacing high water using fixtures such as
toilets, clothes washers, and irrigation devices, as well as incentives to retrofit landscapes for a
low water use, drought tolerant design. The City would continue to monitor programs being
developed by other utilities in order to take advantage of regional momentum and shorten
internal development time.
Drought Rate Structures
In response to previous water shortage conditions due to drought, the City established separate
drought rate schedules for single‐family residential and all other customers and increased the
price difference between lower and higher consumption tiers. For all customers except single‐
family residential customers, the consumption tiers were based on a Baseline Consumption
Allowance (BCA) concept. This concept is described in the section, Water Shortage Mitigation
Options, as applicable to multi‐family, commercial, industrial, public facilities and City facilities
accounts. These strategies have worked effectively in the past and will be the basis for
developing future strategies.
Water Use Restrictions
The City would be more vigilant in enforcing the water use restrictions. A system of warning
citations leading to possible installation of a flow restrictor would be followed. A small number
of emergency water use restrictions would be added. (See Appendix H)
STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings
The City achieved consumption reductions of 31.5%, 35.4%, and 32.7% in FY 1991, FY 1992, and
FY 1993, respectively, when the SFPUC instituted rationing. The water conservation program
implemented at that time included the following major components:
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
All activities from Stage II would continue at escalated levels. In addition, emphasis would be
put on targeted outreach to high water users and special categories of water users (e.g., car
washes, restaurants, etc.).
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Existing demand side management programs would be continued. Staff would continue to
closely monitor overall water savings in order to determine if additional levels of rebate
amounts would provide additional savings, or whether other programs would be necessary.
Drought Rate Structures
This plan does not include rationing or customer allocations. Instead, inverted rates can
provide the incentive to achieve the desired results along with an extensive information
outreach effort. As in Stage II, rate schedules are likely to be separate for single‐family
residential customers and all others. Rateblocks would be structured to fit the overall water
usage reduction requirement. Price signals within the rate structure would serve to alert
customers of their reduction target.
For other than single‐family residential customers, the rate schedule could relate to the BCAs
assigned to each customer if the BCA strategy were to be used. Prices for each of the rate tiers
would increase at a greater rate than in Stage II in order to provide an incentive and rate signal.
In addition, the tiers themselves would decrease in size providing for customer targets
reflective of the increased reduction requirement. The exact pricing mechanism would be
developed according to the capabilities and limitations of the utility billing system.
The exact rates and rate blocks would be established upon receipt of the actual information
from the SFPUC regarding both the reduction requirement and applicable penalties and based
on the utility’s overall revenue requirements.
Water Use Restrictions
Additional “emergency” water use restrictions would be added to the existing permanent
ordinances as provided in Appendix H. The amount of staff time dedicated to enforcement
would be increased.
STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings
A program to meet this level of water use reduction has not yet been implemented in the City.
However, in the spring of 1991, the SFPUC adopted a program calling for reductions in this
range. Although ultimately replaced with a less restrictive program, the City discussed what
actions would be taken to meet the critical reduction targets. The program below outlines the
major components of the plan to meet such a target.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
All activities from Stage III would continue at further escalated levels. A greater focus will be
placed on survival strategies and prioritization assistance for all customer classes.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Depending on what programs have been implemented prior to this stage, or current market
saturations for certain devices, a selected number of indoor conservation incentives will be
offered. These may include rebates for and/or free distribution of showerheads and faucet
aerators, toilet modifications or retrofits, process water use modifications and use of recycled
water.
Drought Rate Structures
At this level of reduction, an allotment method would be considered for each customer. The
allotments would be sufficient for the most critical, high priority uses of water and the
availability of water for outside use would be dramatically reduced. As in Stage III, rate
schedules are likely to be separate for single‐family residential and all other customer classes.
Various allotment methods are discussed in the previous section, Allocation/Allotment
Methods.
For non single‐family residential customer classes, the size of the rate blocks would decrease
from Stage III as appropriate to meet the reduction goal.
Water Use Restrictions
Severe “emergency” water use restrictions, many of which will supersede less stringent
restrictions imposed in a less critical phase, will be added. Enforcement will be more rigorous
in terms of hours of enforcement, number of staff involved, and the speed with which penalties
are applied. (See Appendix H.)
Recycled Water Use
Recycled water offers an alternative source of water to those customers with valuable
landscaping. The availability of contractors who can haul recycled water will be advertised. In
addition, the City will rent tanker trucks to irrigate valuable City landscaping and street trees
that will undoubtedly be stressed by a long‐term drought, the likely precursor to this stage of a
water shortage.
Groundwater
In the event of a water shortage emergency, the City will evaluate the use of groundwater to
meet any SFPUC supply deficiency. The City is limited in the amount of water that can be
withdrawn from the local aquifer, so any decision to rely on groundwater will include
consideration for operational limitations.
Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
which includes each of the following elements which are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(7) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described
in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the
urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such
as the development of reserves and rate adjustments.
Impact on Expenditures
Water utility expenditures can be generally categorized as fixed or variable expenses. The
variable costs are almost entirely related to the costs of purchasing water supplies. Although
the SFPUC supply costs are expressed as a variable commodity rate, the SFPUC system, like
many water delivery systems, is almost exclusively a fixed cost conveyance and treatment
system. As a retail provider, the City’s fixed costs primarily relate to the cost of operating and
maintaining the City’s distribution system.
As consumption falls, the fixed expenses must be spread over fewer units sold which can trigger
a rate increase (see below). In addition, costs for the informational outreach programs during a
water shortage increase. During a Stage I shortage, the costs for voluntary demand‐side
management programs may only increase slightly on a per‐unit basis with an anticipated rise in
program participation levels. Estimates for those costs are relatively small for voluntary
programs – $30,000 for Stage I and $55,000 for Stage II. For mandatory programs, enforcement
and advertising efforts are escalated and the costs rise. Estimates are $100,000 for Stage III and
$150,000 for Stage IV. The net effect is an increase in the expenses per unit of water sold.
Impact on Revenues
From a utility perspective, there is a downside to water conservation – the erosion of sales
revenue. As consumers reduce their usage in response to the drought, the utility will
experience a decline in sales. This decline in sales revenue will necessarily be greater than the
associated decline in fixed expenses due to the volumetric retail rate structure. The impact of
decreased revenues on operations can be mitigated to some extent by drawing upon cash
reserve balances or enacting a rate increase.
An approach for short‐term revenue shortfalls is to draw upon the utility’s cash reserves, if they
are sufficient, to cover the financial obligations of the utility. One longer‐term approach is to
establish a reserve for this purpose and to earmark penalty surcharge revenue (applicable for
usage above allotment or target levels) as a funding source for this reserve. Other options
include short term borrowing or financing long‐term capital projects through revenue bonds
rather than through current rates. Each of these approaches has its advantages and
disadvantages. The appropriate response depends upon the specific circumstances facing the
utility at that moment and other factors.
Reduction Measuring Mechanism
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(9) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to
the urban water shortage contingency analysis.
Under normal water supply conditions, the amount of water coming into the City from the
SFPUC regional supply line is metered at the Arastradero, California, Page Mill, Sand Hill and
Lytton turnouts. The daily meter readings are maintained at the Utility Control Center. Totals
are reported monthly to CPAU’s Resource Management Division for comparison to the billing
amounts from the SFPUC.
In water shortage periods, the Director of Utilities would form an ad hoc Water Committee with
representatives of all divisions to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. During curtailment
stages in a water shortage, supply figures are reported to the Utilities Resource Management
Division on a daily basis with copies to the Utility Marketing Services office. The Water
Committee would provide timely reports to the City Council on the shortage and success of
measures taken.
If curtailment reaches Stage III or Stage IV, daily supply figures are reported to the Director of
Utilities in addition to the Resource Management Division with copies to Utility Marketing
Services and the Water Committee. The Water Committee would report monthly to City
Council or as frequently as information is requested by the City Council.
Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(8) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
The City has experienced two instances of water shortage due to drought in the last 35 years. A
shorter duration drought occurred in l976‐77, and a longer water supply deficit occurred
between l987 and l993. Appendix F provides a draft model Ordinance that could be
implemented during a water shortage emergency.
Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions
Law
10635 (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water
management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its
customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply
and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available
to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years,
in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and
multiple dry water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be
based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including
available data from the state, regional, or local agency population projections
within the service area of the urban water supplier.
Supply and Demand Comparison
Since the City’s primary water supply is the SFPUC, it is useful to examine the supply‐demand
comparison for the entire SFPUC system.
Table 40 Illustrates total system deliveries for both the retail and wholesale SFPUC customers.
It indicates that during normal precipitation years, the SFPUC has adequate supplies to meet its
contractual obligation to the wholesale customers of 184 MGD.
Table 40: SFPUC System Supply and Demand Comparison48
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Wholesale Supply Total 184 184 184 184 184
SFPUC Retail Supply 81 81 81 81 81
System Supply Totals 265 265 265 265 265
Unit of Measure: MGD
In adopting the WSIP, the SFPUC approved a water supply plan that provides for an Interim
Supply Allocation with an automatic sunset in 2018. For the period up to the sunset of the ISL
in 2018, Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation is 14.70 MGD49. The SFPUC has deferred
consideration of several supply issues until 2018 pending additional studies and analysis of the
48 Letter from Paula Kehoe, SFPUC Director of Water Resources, to Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA, dated February 22,
2010
49 As stated in earlier sections, the SFPUC unilaterally imposed the ISL on the BAWSCA agencies without prior
agreement or discussion. The legality of the ISL is a potential future issue if deliveries from the regional system
exceed the 265 MGD threshold for the ISL. Palo Alto’s ISG is a perpetual entitlement that can only be reduced
pursuant to the terms outlined in the WSA. For planning purposes the City relies solely on the ISG.
SFPUC system. For purposes of the 2010 UWMP, the SFPUC has provided a supply commitment
of 184 MGD for the wholesale agencies through 2030. The City has an ISG of 17.07 MGD (or
19,118 AFY) and projects demands will remain below the City’s ISG through the 2010 UWMP
planning horizon. Table 41 represents the City’s Supply and Demand balance for the 2010
planning Horizon based on the City’s contractual entitlement with the SFPUC.
Table 41: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Projected SFPUC demand 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118
Difference 4,866 4,962 4,766 4,148
As previously discussed, projects as described in the WSIP will be required to meet demands
during multiple dry years. The new water sources assumed to be available, with
implementation dates, are summarized in Table 42.
Table 42: SFPUC Water Supply Options for Years 2010 through 2030 (AFY)
Water Supply Option 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Crystal Springs Reservoir Storage
Recovered to 22.28 billion gallons x
Westside Basin Groundwater x 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100
Calaveras Reservoir Storage Recovered
to. 31.5 billion gallons x
Water Transfer 2240 2240 2240 2240 2240
Given the additional supplies assumed to be available, Appendix I Illustrates the level of single
and multi year water delivery shortages that can be expected in the future based on historical
hydrologic periods and assuming the Wholesale customer normal year demand remains at 184
MGD.
Appendix J depicts anticipated SFPUC shortages on a system‐wide basis. The impact on the City
will depend on how the shortage is applied to the City. For water shortages up to 20%, the Tier
1 water shortage plan will be applied. The formula included in the Tier 1 plan indicates that
the cutback for the City will be similar to the system‐wide cutback, but less than the average
BAWSCA cutback. For system‐wide shortages greater than 20%, the SFPUC will follow the Tier 1
plan up to the 20% reduction, and meet and discuss incremental reductions above the Tier 1
plan with the wholesale customers. The SFPUC has the authority to make final allocation
decision for the portion above 20%, though the wholesale customers have the contractual right
to challenge the proposed approach.50
During a severe drought the City could utilize groundwater to supplement SFPUC supplies, but
the City anticipates that even in dire circumstances only a small amount of groundwater would
be served (e.g. < 10% of overall demand). In response to a severe drought the City would work
with residents and businesses to significantly reduce water use, and groundwater from City
wells would be considered a supplemental resource. Additional information on the City’s
drought response is included in Section 7, “Water Shortage Contingency Plan.”
50 WSA, Section 3.11 (c )(3)
APPENDIX A ‐ Resolution Adopting UWMP
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX B – Public Participation Notices
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
URBAN WATER USE TARGETS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing at the
regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near thereafter as
possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto for the following purposes:
1. To consider the City of Palo Alto (City) adoption of the draft 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (Draft 2010 Plan) in compliance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act; and
2. To allow community input regarding the City’s implementation plan for compliance with
the California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7), consider the economic impacts
of its implementation, and adopt a method for determining the City’s urban water use
target as required under SBx7-7.
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires the City to review and update
its Urban Water Management Plan every five years. The City’s Draft 2010 Plan includes an
evaluation of methods to comply with the requirements of SBx7-7. The Draft 2010 Plan is
available for public review and comment through the end of the public hearing described above.
The Draft 2010 Plan is available online for public review at www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp, in
print at the City libraries, and in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
DONNA J. GRIDER, MMC
City Clerk
Publish on Friday, May 27, 2011 and Friday, June 3, 2011
.
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Paula Kehoe
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
1145 Market Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Ms. Kehoe,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Jody Hall Esser
County of Santa Clara
Planning and Development Department
70 West Hedding
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Ms. Jody Hall Esser,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community
be given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an
urban water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local
economy, and the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are
addressed in the City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Sandy Oblonsky
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expwy
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear Ms. Oblonsky,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Art Jensen
BAWSCA
155 Bovet Road, Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Margaret Laporte
Stanford University
Utilities for Water Resources & Environmental Quality
327 Bonair Siding
Stanford, CA 94305
Dear Ms. Laporte,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
James Allen
City of Palo Alto RWQCP
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Allen,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Justin S. Ezell
City of Redwood City
1400 Broadway
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear Mr. Ezell,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Patrick Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
26375 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Walter,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Elizabeth Flegel
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Dear Ms. Flegel,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Rebecca Fotu
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Ms. Fotu,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Anthony Docto, Jr.
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Docto, Jr.,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Catherine Martineau
Canopy
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Martineau,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00
p.m. or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan. California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method
for determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with
the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the
City of Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020.
California law requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP,
the community be given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for
adopting an urban water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to
the local economy, and the City’s method of determining its urban water use
target are addressed in the City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
APPENDIX C ‐ CUWCC Best Management Practices Report
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Telephone Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
Compliance Option Chosen By Reporting Agency:(Traditional, Flex Track or GPCD)
GPCD if used: GPCD in 2010 171
GPCD Target for 2018 179
Year Report Target
Not on Track if 2010 GPCD is > than target
% Base GPCD % Base GPCD GPCD in 2010 171
2010 1 96 4%210 100%218
(650) 329-2417
Highest Acceptable Bound
Highest2010196.4%210 100%218
2012 2 92.8% 202 96% 210 218
2014 3 89.2% 194 93% 202
2016 4 85.6% 186 89% 194 On Track
2018 5 82.0% 179 82% 179
Highest
Acceptable GPCD
for 2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Foundational BMPs
BMP 1.1 Operational Practices
2009 2010
Name Amanda Cox Elvert
Title Utility Account Representative Utility Account Representative
Email
On Track On Track
2. Water waste prevention documentation
Descriptive File
On Track if any one of the 6 ordinance actions done, plus
documentation or links provided
1.Conservation Coordinator
provided with necessary
resources to implement BMPs?
Conservation Coordinator provided with necessary resources to implement BMPs?
Catherine
catherine.elvert@
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance, Water Shortage
Water Shortage Contingency
Descriptive File 2010
URL URL 2010 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/clk/municipal_code.asp
Describe Ordinance Terms
On Track On Track
Describe Ordinance Terms 2010 Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) establishes water use regulations prohibiting water waste. This ordinance is
Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) bli h
Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC)
Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria, and Water Shortage Contingency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
BMP 1.2 Water Loss Control
2009Complete a prescreening Audit no Not on Track On Track if YesMetered Sales 11,377Verifiable Other Uses 0Total Supply 13,040
0.87 Not on Track On Track if =>.89, Not on Track if No
no
(Metered Sales + System uses)/
Total Supply >0.89
If ratio is less than 0.9, complete a full
scale Audit in 2009?
Verify Data with Records on File?no Not on Track On Track if Yes
Operate a system Leak Detection Program?no Not on Track On Track if Yes
2010
No Not on Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA file provided to CUWCC? 0 Not on Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA Water Audit Validity Score? 0 Info only until 2012
no
Compile Standard Water Audit using
AWWA Software?
Completed Training in AWWA Audit Method?no Info only until 2012
No
Complete Component Analysis? No Info only until 2012
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Info only until 2012
Method?
Maintain a record-keeping system for the repair of reported
leaks, including time of report, leak location, type of leaking
pipe segment or fitting, and leak running time from report to
Completed Training in Component Analysis Process?
Repaired all leaks and breaks to the
extent cost effective?
Locate and repair unreported leaks to
the extent cost effective.
Provided 7 types of Water Loss Control Info
Leaks Repaired Miles Surveyed Press Reduction Water Saved
00Off0-$
Value Real Losses
-$ -$
pp g g, g p
repair.
Info only until 2012Cost of InterventionsValue Apparent Losses
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2009 2010
2008 0 On Track 0 On Track On Track if no unmetered accounts
Yes On Track Yes On TrackMetered Accounts billed by volume of Volumetric billing required for all connections on same
If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec 1997, On Track if all connections
metered; If signed after 31 Dec 1997, complete meter
installations by 1 July 2012 or within 6 yrs of signing and 20%
biannual reduction of unmetered connections.
1.3 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT
OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
Exemption or 'At least as Effective As'
accepted by CUWCC
Numbered Unmetered Accounts
0 0 Info only
No On Track No On Track Due in 2011, next reporting period
Feasibility Study provided to CUWCC? Yes On Track No On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
use Volumetric billing required for all connections on same schedule as metering
Completed a written plan, policy or program
to test repair and replace meters
Number of CII accounts with Mixed Use meters
Conducted a feasibility study to assess
merits of a program to provide incentives to
switch mixed-use accounts to dedicated landscape meters?
to test, repair and replace meters
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
1.4 Retail Conservation Pricing
MdWRS
On Track if: Increasing Block, Uniform,
Allocation, Standby Service; Not on Track if
th iMetered Water Rate Structure
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type Conserving Rate? Customer Class 2010 Rate Type Conserving Rate?
Single-Family Yes Single-Family Yes
Multi-Family Yes Multi-Family Yes
Commercial Yes Commercial Yes
Institutional Yes Institutional Yes
Industrial Yes Industrial Yes
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Increasing Block Increasing Block
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
otherwise
On Track On Track
Info only
Agencies with Partially Metered Service Areas: If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later
than 1July 2010. If signed MOU after 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later than 1July 2013, or within seven
years of signing the MOU,
Year Volumetric Rates began for Agencies with some Unmetered
Accounts
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Adequacy of Volumetric Rates) for Agencies with No Unmetered Accounts
Agency Choices for rates:
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type 2010 Rate Type 2010 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s
2009 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s Agency Choices for rates:
Single-Family Increasing Block
Multi-Family Uniform Uniform
Commercial Uniform Uniform
Institutional Uniform Uniform
Industrial Uniform Uniform
Dedicated Irrigation Uniform Uniform
Fire Lines Uniform Uniform
Increasing Block 11,413$
2,160$
30$
A) Agencies signing MOU prior to 13
June2007, implementation starts 1
July2007: On Track if (V / (V + M) ≥
70% x .8 = 56% for 2009 and
70%x0.90 = 63% for 2010; Not on
track if (V / (V + M)) < 70%;
Revenues $1000sRevenues $1000s
4,108$
11,242$
3,578$
4,148$
1,404$
1,512$
2,661$
60$
3,600$
1,566$
1,560$
Total Revenue Commodity Charges (V):
Total Revenue Fixed Charges (M):1,717$
Calculate: V / (V + M):94% 93% B) Use Canadian model.
On Track On Track
No No
24,073$
1,798$
24,969$
Agencies signing MOU
after 13June2007Canadian Water & Wastewater Rate Design Model No No after 13June2007,
implementation starts
July 1 of year following
signing.
Canadian Water & Wastewater Rate Design Model
Used and Provided to CUWCC
If Canadian Model is used, was 1 year or 3 year
period applied?
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Wastewater Rates 2009 2010
Does Agency Provide Sewer Service?yes Yes
Customer Class Conserving Rate? Customer Class Conserving Rate?
Si l F il NVl tiFltRt N Si l F il NNVl tiFltRt
2009 Rate Type 2010 Rate Type
If 'No', then wastewater rate info not
required.
Single-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No Single-Family No
Multi-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No Multi-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No
Commercial Uniform Yes Commercial Uniform Yes
Institutional Uniform Yes Institutional Uniform Yes
Industrial Uniform yes Industrial Uniform Yes
Not on Track
Non-Volumetric Flat Rate
On Track if:
'Increasing Block',
'Uniform', 'based on
long term marginal
cost' or 'next unit of
capacity'Not on Track
Comments: The City of Palo Alto assesses a wastewater charge to
its residential customers based upon an analysis of average winter
baseline consumption. The fixed rate is therefore assessed with an
analysis of volumetric use as a contributing factor. There is the
possibility that the City will consider a different rate structure for this
customer class in the future, but there are a number of technical
and legal challenges to our agency implementing a volumetric rate
for our residential customers
Comments: The City of Palo Alto assesses a wastewater charge to its
residential customers based upon an analysis of average winter baseline
consumption. The fixed rate is therefore assessed with an analysis of
volumetric use as a contributing factor. There is the possibility that the
City will consider a different rate structure for this customer class in the
future, but there are a number of technical and legal challenges to our
agency implementing a volumetric rate for our residential customers.
for our residential customers.
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name:City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #:71
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Coverage Report Date:
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Telephone Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
BMP 2. EDUCATION PROGRAMS
BMP 2.1 Public Outreach Actions Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
2009 2010
10 14
#N/A
May 19, 2011
1) Contacts with the public (minimum = 4 10 14
44
Yes yes All 6 action types
implemented and
)p(
times per year)
2) Water supplier contacts with media (minimum = 4
times per year, i.e., at least quarterly).
3) An actively maintained website that is updated
regularly (minimum = 4 times per year, i.e., at least
quarterly).
Newsletter articles on conservation
General water conservation information
Website
Email Messages
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
News releases
Newspaper contacts
Editorial board visits
p
reported to CUWCC
to be 'On Track')
Newsletter articles on conservation
Newsletter articles on conservation
General water conservation information
Website
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
Editorial board visits
News releases
4) Description of materials used to meet minimum
requirement.
Written editorials
5) Annual budget for public outreach program.4,985$
6) Description of all other outreach programs
OnTrackfor 6 Actions OnTrack for 6 Actions
Description is too large for text area. Data
will be stored in the BMP Reporting database
when online.
8,000$
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Coverage Report Date:May 19, 2011
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2.2 School Education Programs Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
2009 2010
Yes Yes
Name of Wholesale Supplier?
Does a wholesale agency implement School Education
Programs for this unility's benefit?
Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District
Yes/ No
Water-Wise curriculumWater resources education, water supply
and conservation education. Materials
include water awareness kits, interactive
software, field trips, reading materials.
1) Curriculum materials developed and/or provided by
agency
Yes Yes
3) Materials Distributed to K 6?yes Yes
2) Materials meet state education framework
requirements and are grade-level appropriate?All 5 actions types implemented
and reported to CUWCC to be
'On Track'3) Materials Distributed to K-6?yes Yes
Describe K-6 Materials
Oac
Water awareness kits, interactive software,
field trip resources, reading materials,
videos.
Conservation lessons grades 1-5,
flood lesson, water walk game,
watershed geography activity with
hands-on learning tools and games,
solar drinking fountain, water
awareness kits, reading materials,
videos.
Describe materials to meet
minimum requirements
Materials distributed to 7-12 students? No No Info Only
4) Annual budget for school education program.5,613$ 50,000$
5) Description of all other water supplier education
See Wholesale Report See Wholesale Report
01
On Track On Track
Canoe in the Slough, in-classroom
presentations, Green Touch Screen Project
programs
APPENDIX D ‐ CUWCC BMPs and Corresponding DMMs
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX E – City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water
Shortage Implementation Plan (w/attachments)
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX F ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft
Ordinance
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX G ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation
Criteria
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 2
CRITERIA TO EVALUATE WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
This appendix lists criteria expected to guide the selection of allocation/allotment
strategies whenever water use reductions are needed. Not all of them may be applicable
to every strategy but customer perception of equity is important in achieving the necessary
reductions.
1. Reduce overall City consumption by reduction target required – this is the effective goal of
any plan. To accomplish this goal the percentage reduction for the various customer classes
will necessarily vary because their ratios of indoor / outdoor use varies.
2. Sufficient water available for personal use – the most important use of water is for basic
drinking, health, and sanitary uses, and therefore, this is given the highest priority of use.
This prioritization will drive both rate schedules and water use restrictions. However, within
allowed limits (i.e., water use restriction ordinances), customers will be able to choose how
they use their allotment between indoor and outdoor uses.
3. Acceptance by the community – many people tend to evaluate or accept a particular water‐
rationing plan in terms of how it would directly affect them. It is this aspect which makes it
difficult to gain a popular consensus on any one plan. However, any plan must be generally
accepted by the community to be successful. One important aspect of acceptance is the
public’s understanding of the program; thus, it is viewed as important to make the plan as
uncomplicated as possible.
4. Minimize unemployment or business loss – water is extensively used in both commercial
and industrial functions. If water is severely limited to these consumers, increased
unemployment and business losses could result. Staff intends that, wherever possible, this
should be avoided. Still, outside water use must be sacrificed greatly if only minimal indoor
reductions are required. Cooling tower use for air conditioning must also be considered.
5. Landscaping investment losses – in cases of critical or severe shortage of water, it is
expected that significant landscaping losses may arise. The use of recycled water should be
encouraged for certain applications. In some cases, using the City’s well system to augment
the SFPUC supply will be an option to provide a minimum amount of water for landscaping.
In this case, the goal should be to keep valuable and mature trees and plantings alive.
Shrubs and lawns will be considered a lower priority.
6. Workable plan – the plan must be workable in order to accomplish its goal. It must take the
following factors into account:
a. Cost ‐ the cost of any water plan to the public should be minimized.
Page 2 of 2
b. Enforcement ‐ enforcement is viewed as a key component of any plan. Those plans
requiring fewer resources for enforcement would be preferable. However, the success
of a plan is contingent upon effective enforcement and the utility must be provided the
resources to meet the enforcement objective. The current staff can only absorb a
certain level of additional responsibilities without unreasonably impacting service to the
customer.
c. The plan must be practical and feasible from a data processing viewpoint and not
subject to erroneous results due to incomplete or inaccurate databases. A realistic
timeframe must be allowed to perform any necessary data entry or customer
programming functions.
9. Flexibility – the water shortage is a dynamic situation and may get better or worse. Thus, it
is necessary that any plan be adaptable to changes in targets or adjustable if original
expectations are not being met.
10. Allowance for new services – some provision must be made in any plan to serve new
establishments or those under construction.
12. Recover penalties applied by suppliers – revenue should be collected to the extent
necessary to recover any penalties that may be charged by suppliers.
APPENDIX H ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Use
Restrictions
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 2
WATER USE RESTRICTIONS
This appendix lists the current long‐term water use restrictions and additional restrictions that
could be applied during a water supply shortage situation.
Existing Permanent Water use Regulations
1. Flooding or runoff of potable water is prohibited.
2. A shut‐off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, sidewalks, buildings, etc.
3. Potable water for construction uses is prohibited if recycled water is available.
4. Broken or defective plumbing and irrigation systems must be repaired or replaced within a
reasonable period.
Additional Regulations for Emergency Water Shortage Situations
Water Use restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage II:
1. Landscape irrigation shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip
irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering.
2. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon
request.
Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage III:
All water use restrictions for Stage II above and the following:
1. Potable water other than when used from containers of five gallons or less, shall not be
used to clean hard surfaced areas or building structures.
2. Potable water shall not be used to operate, clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative
fountains or ponds.
3. Newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs may not be filled.
4. Signs providing notice of water shortage emergency shall be displayed in all public
restrooms and restaurants, and in hotel guestrooms.
5. Outdoor water use audits are required for those customers continuing to use more than
target allotments for three months.
6. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if economically feasible.
7. Verified water waste will serve as prima facie evidence that the allocation assigned to the
water account is excessive and subject to reduction.
8. The use of potable water on golf courses is limited to putting greens and tees.
9. The use of potable water for street sweepers/washers is prohibited.
Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage IV:
1. No new water service hookups unless customer pays for sufficient conservation elsewhere
to offset anticipated water use.
Page 2 of 2
3. No new landscaping installed at new construction sites. Bonds to be posted for landscaping
after water shortage emergency is lifted.
4. Turf irrigation prohibited.
5. Owners/operators of private wells must adhere to the same water use restrictions as other
residents and businesses dependent upon the City’s potable supply.
6. Once‐through cooling systems must be converted to recycling systems.
7. The washing of all vehicles is prohibited outside of a commercial washing facility that
recycles its water.
8. Irrigation by sprinklers is prohibited at all times
APPENDIX I – Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1920 184 184 184 184 184
1921 184 184 184 184 184
1922 184 184 184 184 184
1923 184 184 184 184 184
1924 184 184 184 184 184
1925 154.6 184 184 184 184
1926 184 184 184 184 184
1927 184 184 184 184 184
1928 184 184 184 184 184
1929 184 184 184 184 184
1930 184 184 184 184 184
1931 184 184 184 184 184
1932 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1933 184 184 184 184 184
1934 184 184 184 184 184
1935 154.6 184 184 184 184
1936 184 184 184 184 184
1937 184 184 184 184 184
1938 184 184 184 184 184
1939 184 184 184 184 184
1940 184 184 184 184 184
1941 184 184 184 184 184
1942 184 184 184 184 184
1943 184 184 184 184 184
1944 184 184 184 184 184
1945 184 184 184 184 184
1946 184 184 184 184 184
1947 184 184 184 184 184
1948 184 184 184 184 184
1949 184 184 184 184 184
1950 184 184 184 184 184
1951 184 184 184 184 184
1952 184 184 184 184 184
1953 184 184 184 184 184
1954 184 184 184 184 184
1955 184 184 184 184 184
1956 184 184 184 184 184
1957 184 184 184 184 184
1958 184 184 184 184 184
Page 2 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1959 184 184 184 184 184
1960 184 184 184 184 184
1961 152.6 184 184 184 184
1962 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1963 184 184 184 184 184
1964 184 184 184 184 184
1965 184 184 184 184 184
1966 184 184 184 184 184
1967 184 184 184 184 184
1968 184 184 184 184 184
1969 184 184 184 184 184
1970 184 184 184 184 184
1971 184 184 184 184 184
1972 184 184 184 184 184
1973 184 184 184 184 184
1974 184 184 184 184 184
1975 184 184 184 184 184
1976 184 184 184 184 184
1977 152.6 184 184 184 184
1978 136.2 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1979 184 184 184 184 184
1980 184 184 184 184 184
1981 184 184 184 184 184
1982 184 184 184 184 184
1983 184 184 184 184 184
1984 184 184 184 184 184
1985 184 184 184 184 184
1986 184 184 184 184 184
1987 184 184 184 184 184
1988 152.6 184 184 184 184
1989 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1990 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1991 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5
1992 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1993 136.2 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5
1994 184 184 184 184 184
1995 154.6 184 184 184 184
1996 184 184 184 184 184
1997 184 184 184 184 184
1998 184 184 184 184 184
Page 3 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1999 184 184 184 184 184
2000 184 184 184 184 184
2001 184 184 184 184 184
2002 184 184 184 184 184
ATTACHMENT E
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2011
ITEM 2: ACTION: Recommendation to Council to Approve and Adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
Senior Resource Planner Nicolas Procos and Utility Account Representative Catherine Elvert prepared a
presentation to deliver to the UAC. Prior to beginning the presentation, Chair Waldfogel inquired about the
regulatory requirements behind the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and if it were pertinent for the
Commission to discuss the highlights of the 2010 UWMP including any changes since 2005. In response,
Commissioner Melton explained that the UWMP is a legislative requirement, and made a motion for the
Commission to move ahead with approval of the plan and proposed SBx7-7 compliance methodology.
Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Commissioner Melton then asked if there were any new
legislative actions included in the plan. Staff explained that the 2010 UWMP does not contain any dramatic
departures in policy since the 2005 UWMP, but did mention two differences from the 2005 UWMP worth
noting – the new efficiency program targets and the SBx7-7 compliance program. The Commission asked
staff to present the efficiency and SBx7-7 issues.
Elvert proceeded to discuss the current and past water conservation measures and savings achieved by
the Utilities Dept. For the 2010 UWMP and future savings projections, Elvert discussed the new measures
that the City will use to achieve the significant increase in water conservation savings when compared to
the 2005 UWMP.
Procos discussed the proposed SBx7-7 compliance strategy. Procos noted that there are four possible
methods and the rationale behind staff’s recommended methodology. Procos further discussed the City’s
compliance strategy, including the plan to review progress prior to the 2015 UWMP.
Commissioner Keller asked if the rising cost of water will result in a higher conservation potential, especially
with regards to outdoor conservation potential. Elvert responded that rising water costs should continue to
make a number of efficiency measures cost-effective, and in the future should be a contributing factor
toward additional water savings.
Commissioner Melton noted his skepticism with one savings measure in particular, “workshops.” Elvert
responded that there are certain assumptions involved in estimating water savings as a result of contacts
with the public, and that staff has noticed a dramatic increase in attendance at workshops and this trend
may continue. Utility Director Fong responded that staff agreed that savings from workshops and
educational classes was difficult to quantify and staff will track this measure closely.
Commissioner Keller discussed the extensive educational outreach to residents and asked if there was
anything more the City could do to work with businesses for water efficiency. Elvert replied that a number
of workshops are open to professionals in the community, and the City continues to diversify the
educational opportunities and incentives offered to this sector. Utility Director Fong replied that the Utilities
Department has Key Account representatives that work with large customers on a regular basis to identify
potential efficiency improvements. Elvert mentioned programs particularly beneficial to large customers
including the Water Efficient Technologies and outdoor irrigation rebate programs.
Chair Waldfogel asked whether the 2010 UWMP was consistent with the City’s current water reduction
policies. Staff clarified that the Chair was referring to the City Council approved 20% by 2020 reduction
plan that was approved by Council on April 19th 2010 (CMR 212:10). Procos responded that the timing for
the City’s reduction plan was not synchronized to the SB7x-7 effort, but noted the alignment between the
2010 UWMP and the City’s own effort.
Chair Waldfogel inquired if there was anything in the plan that might result in a future recommendation to
the UAC to approve mandated water use restrictions. Procos responded that the SBx7-7 program may
change in 2015 and it does not at this time set specific use restrictions on any customer class. Other than
that, there is no intention at this time to use the 2010 UWMP as a basis to impose additional water use
restrictions. Utility Director Fong mentioned that new development regulations are included as part of the
demand management measures in the 2010 UWMP. Elvert added that the City adopted these new
regulations for indoor and outdoor water efficient design through its adoption of the new State Green
Building Standards Code, CALGreen, which went into effect at the first of this year. These regulations do
not require existing properties to change landscape design or water use practices. Utility Director Fong
mentioned the one exception would be water use during a drought.
ACTION: Commissioner Melton repeated the motion to recommend Council approval of the proposed
UWMP and SBx7-7 target methodology. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1746)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Summary Title: El Camino Park
Title: Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at
El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-08002 El
Camino Park Resevoir Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council:
1.Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff’s suggested use of
$1,420,500 of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the
Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommended list of improvements to
El Camino Park (Attachment A); and
2.Direct staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for EL Camino Park
beyond the current June 2033 expiration date.
Executive Summary
Since June 2010, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission)
have discussed possible park improvements at El Camino Park that could coincide
with construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park Reservoir Project
(CIP WS-08002) (Project). With the Commission’s guidance, staff created a list of
improvements (e.g., synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field, expanded parking, and
new pathways) that can be funded by impact fees. Staff is recommending that
Council approve the use of impact fees to fund the list of improvements at El
Camino Park.
Background
The Project, which is currently in its final stage of design for the reservoir and
ancillary buildings, has created a unique opportunity for the City to leverage time
and resources to improve several areas of the popular park. Since June 2010, the
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Commission has discussed park design improvements at six regular meetings and
one special on-site meeting at the park.
•June 22, 2010-The Utilities Department presented to the Commission an
update on the El Camino Park Reservoir Project. The Commission decided this was
an opportunity to improve the park.
•June 29, 2010-A special Commission meeting was held at the park. Staff,
Commissioners, and members of the public brain-stormed ideas for possible
improvements for the park which included synthetic turf fields, new public
bathroom, improved pathways among many other creative ideas such as an
outdoor volleyball court or BMX track.
•July 27, 2010-The Commission made a motion to have its list of improvement
ideas forwarded to Siegfried Engineering Inc., the landscape architect firm
designing the Project, to evaluate feasibility and possible costs.
•September 28, 2010-Many of the Commission’s suggested park improvements
were included in the draft park project design. The Commission decided to move
forward with making a recommendation to Council.
•October 26, 2010-Siegfried presented the Commission with an update on the
design of the Project. The Commission provided additional input on the design.
•January 25, 2011-Siegfried presented the Commission with five design options
for their consideration. The Commission asked to see a combination of three of
the designs, and highlighted the importance of expanding public parking to
accommodate expanded field use.
•February 22, 2011-Staff presented a conceptual design incorporating the
Commission’s feedback, and presented two options for the use of impact fee to
fund the improvements (discussed below).
Throughout these meetings the Commission raised questions and made
comments about pedestrian/bike access to the park, restroom location
(specifically related to safety and access), tree protection efforts, maximizing
parking spaces, fencing possibilities for joint dog exercise area, and lighting
improvements. In addition to the Commission’s guidance on design features,
Recreation staff has collected insight from various field user groups regarding
preferred field design features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi-use
designs to accommodate growing sports such as lacrosse. This input provided
direction for the current conceptual design of park improvements.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new
multi-use sports facilities will attract downtown residents to the park and make it
a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to the park would increase
usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood recreational needs in
our community, and make effective use of space within the park that is currently
undeveloped. The Commission has urged the Council (October 20, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at the park in conjunction with the Utilities reservoir project.
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of
Proposition 218, in that the City's Water Fund may pay only for the water project
and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities directly impacted
by the Project, and not other new park improvements or enhancements. In
appreciation of the funding limitations, staff and the Commission recommend
using impact fees to augment the Utilities Department’s in-kind park
replacement.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, the Council adopted Ordinance 4742, creating Chapter 16.48
of the PAMC, to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers,
and libraries. The impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment
recreational opportunities through the improvement of parks in order to
compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services brought about by
new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in
population.
In order to validly impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a
“nexus” between the development and the public facilities or services that would
be funded by the fee, and the City also had to establish a connection between the
development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on the
development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus”
report (Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to
provide the legal framework for the imposition of development fees. According to
the report, impact fees for parks are intended to cover the cost of land acquisition
and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes on
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 11
(ID # 1746)
to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the
City may choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance
the capacity of existing parks to serve additional demand, rather than to acquire
more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs, and
should be used on capital projects that significantly enhance capacity.
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff
worked with community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation
Commission to study strategies for enhancing park and recreational facilities
throughout the City in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new
development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park
improvement projects (Top Ten List, Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees
was approved by the Council on March 12, 2007 (CMR:168:07). This list includes
adding restrooms to parks with large sports fields, replacing natural turf with
synthetic turf on four popular sport fields to expand play capacity, adding lights
for tennis court and field facilities to expand play capacity into the evening, and
the addition of a children’s playground at Heritage Park.
The Commission’s Recommendation for Impact Fee Use at El Camino Park
On February 22, 2011, staff presented the Commission with two possible options
for using impact fees to fund improvements at El Camino Park (Attachment D).
Staff provided context for the recommended options by explaining the various
sources of funding for capital improvement projects (CIPs) in parks: the general
fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, and impact fees. The Commission
and staff carefully reviewed and analyzed the incomplete projects on the Top Ten
List, as well as other park projects that could potentially be funded by Park Impact
Fees. The Commission thoughtfully debated the two options for impact fee use at
El Camino Park.
Staff recommended “Option A,” which included the following features: a
synthetic turf north soccer/lacrosse playing field; a synthetic turf south
softball/multi use playing field; a new storage building for maintenance
equipment; expanded parking lot; lighting conduit for future lighting of north
field; mulch for non turf areas; soccer catchment fencing; and funding for limited
tree removal and design fees. This option would have used $2,360,500 of the
current impact fee balance of $2.8 million.
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The Commission voted 4-2 to instead recommend “Option B” (Minutes for
Commission Meeting, Attachment E), which included a synthetic turf north
soccer/lacrosse playing field; a natural turf south softball/multi use playing field; a
new storage building for maintenance equipment; expanded parking lot; lighting
conduit for future lighting of north field; mulch for non turf areas; soccer
catchment fencing; and funding for limited tree removal and design fees.; as well
as a new decomposed granite pathway with lighting, and four picnic tables.
Option B will use $1,420,500 of the current impact fee balance. The difference
between the two options is that Option B is $940,000 less expensive than Option
A; includes only one synthetic turf field instead of the two proposed in Option A;
and includes a decomposed granite path with lighting and four picnic tables that
were not included in Option A.
The Commission expressed the importance of retaining funding in the impact fee
account for future projects and possible land acquisition. The Commission
pointed out that having two artificial turf fields would likely draw high numbers of
field users to the park. They also noted that even with the additional 13 parking
stalls that will be added from expanding the parking lot, there would likely be
insufficient parking to accommodate the high volume of field users from two
multi-use synthetic turf fields. The current field use levels often exceed the
capacity of the existing parking lot. Staff had initially thought the close proximity
to public transit and the parking lot at the Stanford Shopping Center across El
Camino Real from the park would provide alternatives for park users to get to the
park. Several Commissioners pointed out that in their experience field users
typically do not use public transit to get to playing fields, and would be unlikely to
park far from the fields. The Commissioners also highlighted the high
replacement costs and relative short life spans of the synthetic turf fields
(synthetic turf has a typical life span of eight to ten years, and cost approximately
$550,000 to replace). Some Commission members felt that the City could add
synthetic turf to the south field at a future date if it is deemed prudent; while two
Commissioners felt there would be a cost savings from installing a south synthetic
turf as part of this project. After lengthy discussion, staff agreed with the 4-2
Commission vote that Option B represents the best use of impact fees at El
Camino Park. The majority of Commissioners supported Option B because they
felt that even with additional parking spaces created by the new design the park
would create too much user demand if there were two synthetic turf fields at this
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 11
(ID # 1746)
one facility. Two Commissioners voted against the motion because they felt that
Option B only provided for the conversion of one field (the soccer field) to
synthetic turf. They expressed their concern that because of the demonstrated
need for more playing fields in Palo Alto. The two Commissioners were, however,
in favor of all other aspects of the conceptual design of Option B, including picnic
areas, parking, and pathways.
Archtectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session
On May 5, 2011, Siegfried presented the proposed improvements to the ARB for a
study session. The Board stated that they appreciated the decomposed pathways
and the tree preservation efforts. They were pleased with the clustering of
restroom, scorekeepers booth, and storage facility; and liked that the design of
these structures match the design of the proposed Utilities pump station building.
The Board suggested joining the storage building and scorekeepers building into
one structure. They also asked staff to return with a species list for the trees to be
planted, and a sample of the proposed rubber mulch. The Board commented that
they would like to see the bike path connect with Alma Street. Staff explained
that this is a future design element, however it is currently unfunded and requires
additional study. Staff will return to seek final ARB approval in July or August.
Discussion
Conceptual Site Design and Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee
Use ($1,420,500) at El Camino Park
Siegfried incorporated the Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding
site features to create a conceptual site design (Attachment F). The design
includes a synthetic turf soccer/lacrosse field on the north-end of the park, and a
natural turf softball/multi-use field on the south-end near the transit station. The
benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to accommodate field
users, increased revenue from field brokering fees, and an improved and safer
playing surface. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”,
identified field space as one of the most critical recreation needs of our
community. The report suggested that Palo Alto would benefit from having a
synthetic playing field in the north, south, east, and west regions of the City. The
City has synthetic playing fields in the south and west (Cubberley Community
Center and Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields). A synthetic field at El Camino Park
would provide a field for the northern region of Palo Alto. At some point in the
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 11
(ID # 1746)
future, a synthetic turf field can be added to Greer Park, which serves the eastern
region of the City.
The recommended design also includes an expanded parking lot (13 additional
parking stalls), a new decomposed granite exercise pathway with security lighting,
mulch for the non-turf areas, soccer catchment fencing, four picnic tables, a
maintenance equipment storage shed, and electric conduit and footings, which
will allow for adding soccer field lighting at a future time without damaging the
artificial turf. It should be noted that future lighting for the soccer field has not yet
been thoroughly vetted with the community or residents who might be affected
by the lights. Attachment A lists the features that would be funded by impact fees
and their associated costs.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s Park improvement wish-list items (new
restrooms, score keeper building, dog run, and replacement of existing asphalt
pathways) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for legal use of
impact fee funds. Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park
improvements including future capital improvement projects with an attempt to
have the additional projects completed while the park is under renovation.
Dog Run
The Commission requested that Siegfried look at opportunities to incorporate an
off-leash dog exercise area into the park design. Siegfried’s design allows for a
fenced dog run located just north of the north-end playing field. The decomposed
granite path has been configured in such a way that a dog run could conceptually
be placed inside the pathway loop.
A fenced dog run would require more maintenance than the proposed passive
recreation multi-use lawn area, which would serve as an area where people could
recreate near the surrounding picnic tables. The size for the dog run would be
approximately .5 acres. Though the City has small dog runs at Greer Park and
Hoover Park that are less than .5 acres. A study on off-leash dog exercise areas by
the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis finds a correlation between the
size of the dog run and its success, with larger dog runs being ranked as more
successful. The City of Boulder Colorado has a minimum size of 1 acre for fenced
dog runs.
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Given the size limitations and increased maintenance costs associated with dog
runs, staff does not recommend an exclusive-use dog exercise area in this
location.
El Camino Park Lease
Owned by Stanford University, El Camino Park is under long-term lease to the City
of Palo Alto. On January 12, 2009 Council approved the recommendations in CMR
104:09 to sign an agreement with Stanford University on the terms and conditions
for the easement rights to place the reservoir in the park. Five permanent
easements were established to permit the construction, maintenance and
operation of the reservoir, pump station, well and water supply pipelines. These
easements are permanent and will only terminate upon the abandonment or
non-use of the facilities for a period of two consecutive years. The north section
of the park, where the synthetic turf is proposed, does not have a permanent
easement. It is under lease through June 2033. Due to the significant investment
the City of Palo Alto may make in improving El Camino Park, the Parks and
Recreation Commission made a motion that was unanimously approved at their
April 26, 2011 meeting to request that Council pursue a long-term lease with
Stanford for El Camino Park beyond the June 2033 expiration date.
Tree Protection Efforts
An Arborist’s Pre-construction Tree Protection Report was performed Ray
Morneau in 2008 for this project. Early in the design process, Siegfried estimated
that 16 trees would be removed for the reservoir project. The City Planning
Arborist, Dave Dockter, worked with Siegfried, Parks, and Utilities staff to devise
options for preserving additional trees. The current proposed park design requires
the removal of two sweetgum trees (size of the two trees: 17.4’’ and 20.4’’
diameter at breast height -dbh) for the project, and the removal of one Monterey
Pine tree for health and safety reasons. The project also requires relocating two
small coastal redwood trees (size of trees 2.2’’ and 2.3’’ dbh) in the park. Thirty-
six new trees will be planted in the park as part of the conceptual design. The cost
for the tree removals and relocations is estimated to be approximately $2,500.
Olympic Grove
The southwestern border of the park is occupied by four trees planted in the
1980s in honor Palo Alto Olympic medalists. The four Coast Redwoods were
June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 11
(ID # 1746)
planted to honor their notable achievements. As part of the proposed project, an
honorary plaque will be installed to commemorate the Olympic Redwood Grove.
Future park projects that could utilize impact fee money
Staff has identified several other projects at other City parks that meet the impact
fee funding requirements of significantly expanding user capacity. After funding
the suggested improvements for El Camino Park, the remaining impact fee
balance would be $1,379,500. These potential impact fee-funded projects might
include:
1.Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project
is projected to cost approximately $1.6 million. The City will allocate the
land necessary for the playground and $300,000 (recommended in the
2012 Capital Budget recommendation) for the project. The remainder of
the funding is expected to come entirely from fundraising and grants from
the Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground.
2.Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012).
There has been no formal cost analysis for trail design and construction,
though staff estimates that a simplified version of the Hargreave’s 1991
Byxbee Park Plan trail design (listed in the Baylands Master Plan) would
cost approximately $275,000 for trail developments, signage and visitor
amenities.
3.Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost
$220,000. However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff
recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that
ensures long-term community access is in place.
4.Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000.
However, because the lease for Cubberley expires in 2014, staff
recommends deferring a decision on this project until a new lease that
ensures long-term community access is in place.
June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 11
(ID # 1746)
Staff suggests that these projects, and any additional park projects that could be
funded by impact fees, should be further discussed at a future Commission
meeting where the Commission will consider creating an updated Top Ten list of
projects to be funded by impact fees that will be brought to Council for review
and adoption.
Park Project Timeline
•May 5, 2011 Architectural Review Board Study Session
•November 2012 Complete Phase 1 (e.g., reservoir and pump station)
•November 2012 Begin Phase 2 Construction (e.g., park restoration, synthetic
and natural turf, and pathways)
•May 2013 Complete Phase 2. Park re-opens to the public
Resource Impact
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as recommended to Council by staff
and the Parks and Recreation Commission, would utilize $1,420,500 million of the
total $2.8 million in the impact fee account. This would leave a balance of $1.435
million for future projects. The Nexus report had projected $1.3 million annual
revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and
employment). Below are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
Policy Implications
The proposed park improvements are consistent with Policy C-26 of the
Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages
maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22
that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 11
(ID # 1746)
The proposed project is consistent with the Park and Recreation Commission’s
review of the design of the project and is consistent with the goals of the 2002
Athletic Fields Report.
Environmental Review
This project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
accordance with the CEQA requirements.
Attachments:
·Attachement A -Impact Fee Improvements (PDF)
·Attachement B -Memo to Council (PDF)
·Attachment C-Park and Recreation Commission Top Ten List 2007 (PDF)
·Attachment D-Park and Rec Commission Staff Report El Camino Park (PDF)
·Attachment E -Feb 22, 2011 PARC Minutes (PDF)
·Attachment F-Conceptual Design (PDF)
Prepared By:Daren Anderson,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Staff and Commission Recommended Impact Fee Use
at El Camino Park
Attachment A
Improvements Impact Fee Costs
Design and Construction Management 200,000$
Remove Existing Trees 2,500$
Soccer Catchment Fence $ 175,000
Synthetic Turf Soccer Field $ 809,000
New Storage Building $ 19,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000
Electric Conduit for Soccer Field Lighting $ 72,000
Additional Parking $ 73,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000
Rubber Mulch Areas $ 12,000
Total:1,420,500$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,800,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance 1,379,500$
ATTACHMENT B
Parks and Recreation Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE: October 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Recommendation to invest in El Camino Park design
improvements in conjunction with the El Camino Park Reservoir
Project
The Parks and Recreation Commission considers El Camino Park an underused
asset. The El Camino Park Reservoir Project creates a unique opportunity for the
City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park for active
use. Improvements to current fields and the addition of new facilities will attract
residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s Park System.
Renovations to El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet
some well-understood recreational needs in our community and make use of space
within the park that is currently undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation
Commission urges City Council to seek or provide supplemental funding to make
park improvements at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Following a briefing about the Reservoir Project in June, 2010, site visits on June
29, 2010 and July 7, 2010, and discussion at the July 27, 2010 meeting of the Palo
Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission approved a memo outlining
potential improvements to El Camino Park. Staff member de Geus discussed the
memo with the City's Utilities Department. The Utilities Department is supportive of
improving El Camino Park and has shown a willingness to work with the
Community Services Department on this project. However, the Utilities Department
is limited by the terms of Proposition 218 allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only
for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park and related park amenities
impacted by the project and not park improvements.
The Parks and Recreation Commissioners understand that while some incremental,
in-kind improvements may be allowable, many park improvements cannot be
funded through the Reservoir Project. Nonetheless, we see a timely opportunity to
upgrade the park while construction-related disruptions are already underway.
Thanks to the thoughtful work of the Utilities Department planners, several of the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to support increased usage,
access and efficiencies, are included in the project's latest design:
Include the Parks and Recreation Commission in the review of the park
design at 45%, 75% and 90% (the current design status is 65% complete);
1
ATTACHMENT B
Add lacrosse striping in addition to soccer striping on athletic fields to
accommodate increasing demands and allow for more flexible usage;
Design the south softball field for multi-use, with no permanent fence
defining the softball field, to allow flexible use for softball and soccer;
Allow walking/biking access point to the park from the south end near the
bus station drop off point, expanding access to and from the transportation
depot and the downtown area;
Install necessary underground infrastructure, including electrical conduit
and water lines to the northern and southern ends of the park, for efficient
installation of future park improvements.
In addition to the items above, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends
the following improvements:
Building capacity of current park assets
Add lights to the soccer/lacrosse field to allow for night games. This new
usage would relieve scheduling pressure for athletic fields and also
encourage a more organized public presence in the park after dark;
Replace or remodel bathroom (this should include timed locks) due to its
poor condition. Better maintained facilities will welcome new users to the
park and improve users’ park experience;
Add an access point by the rail crossing north/east of the park to
encourage and facilitate more neighborhood usage by the downtown north
community;
Install a scoreboard on the softball field and possibly a new
storage/scorekeeper shed;
Provide a backstop for the softball field that will not interfere with Little
League play.
Satisfy unmet needs for recreation in Palo Alto
Design a dog exercise area at the undeveloped north or south end of the
park: Northern end of the park was preferred for a dog exercise area over
the southern end due to easier access for nearby neighborhoods. This area
is already fenced on three sides, so construction would be minimal, (fence
the north end of the park, past the soccer field, right of the walking path),
while meeting a well established community need. There are currently no
off-leash dog recreation alternatives in north Palo Alto.
Add a walking track around one or both fields, non-asphalt, i.e.
decomposed granite to encourage more neighborhood use of the park.
2
ATTACHMENT B
3
Use all of the available park space
Improve the southwest end of the park by adding a passive grassy area for
BBQs and picnics. This would be useful for teams to use after games or
for other users of the park to enjoy;
Commemorate the Olympic Grove of Redwood Trees at the north end of the
park;
Improve the southern unused area of the park for other recreation uses
such as outdoor volleyball courts or a BMX track.
These preliminary recommendations are based on discussions at multiple Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings, but lack the benefit of a public outreach meeting
dedicated to discussing improvements to El Camino Park. We believe such a public
meeting is an important step that should precede any final recommendations or
decisions about specific park renovations. Because the design process is moving
forward apace, however, the Commission recommends that public outreach proceed
in parallel to investigation of supplemental funding opportunities.
The Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission understands that improving El
Camino Park is just one of many infrastructure projects facing the City.
Nonetheless, the planned Reservoir Project construction at El Camino Park creates
an unusual opportunity to optimize resources and minimize disruption by making
park improvements in conjunction with reservoir upgrades. The Commission’s
above recommendations include a variety of improvements, both small and large,
that will build capacity by maximizing park assets, serve ongoing unmet recreational
needs, and improve park access and usage. It makes sense to fund park
improvements now. The Commission strongly encourages the City to capitalize on
this opportunity.
ATTACHMENT C
Green or * means in process or completed
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2007
Co
m
m
i
s
si
n P
o
rio
r
i
t
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
Nee
d
Ex
t
e
r
nal
Fu
n
ding
He
a
l
t
h &
Sa
f
et y
Co
u
n
cil
Dir
e
ctio
n
Le
g
ally
Re
q
uire
d
Impact Fe
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n/E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Notes
Parks
*Stanford / Palo Alto Playing
Fields X X X X X 212,000$
*Heritage Park Play Structure XX X
*Greer Park Phase IV XXX X
*Seale Park Restroom X X X X 440,000$
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X 440,000$
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting XXX
*Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X 850,000$
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic
Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future
Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities:
Gymnasium, Skate Bowl
Improvements, Additional
Tennis Courts at Greer, Bocce
Ball courts at Mitchell
Community outreach concluded restrooms at this park was not desired.
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000 was to be funded by Impact Fees.
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at Seale Park.
Notes
ATTACHMENT D
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2011
SUBJECT: El CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding staff’s suggested use
of Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of improvements to El
Camino Park (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The El Camino Park Reservoir Project, which is currently in its final stage of design, has created a
unique opportunity for the City to leverage time and resources to improve several areas of the park
for active use. Since June 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed El Camino
Park design improvements at four regular meetings and one special meeting at El Camino Park. The
Commission believes improvements to current fields and the addition of new sports facilities will
attract residents and make El Camino Park a vibrant part of the City’s park system. Renovations to
El Camino Park would increase usability of current park assets, meet some well-understood
recreational needs in our community, and make use of space within the park that is currently
undeveloped. The Parks and Recreation Commission has urged the City Council (October 10, 2010,
memorandum, Attachment B) to seek or provide supplemental funding to make park improvements
at El Camino Park in conjunction with the Reservoir Project.
Regarding funding alternatives, the Utilities Department is limited by the terms of Proposition 218
allowing the City's Water Fund to pay only for the water project and in-kind replacement of the park
and related park amenities directly impacted by the project, and not park improvements or
enhancements. Appreciating the funding limitations, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission
will look to impact fees to augment the Utilities Departments in-kind park replacement.
Capital Improvement Projects
In order to provide context for a discussion about improvements at El Camino Park, it is helpful to
view the big picture of capital improvement projects (CIPs) for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation.
Staff has provided a spreadsheet (Attachment C) that highlights these CIPs, and separates them into
the following categories: existing CIPs FY 2011-2015; new proposed CIPs FY 2012-2016; and CIPs
that need to be addressed. The existing CIPs are projects that have already been approved and
ATTACHMENT D
funded for FY 2011. The new proposed CIPs have been submitted for review to the CIP Committee
and once reviewed will go to Council for funding approval. CIPs can be funded by the City’s
general fund infrastructure reserve, grants, donations, or by park development impact fees.
Park Development Impact Fees
On March 25, 2002, Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4742 creating Chapter 16.48 of the
PAMC) to establish development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The
impact fees are legally required to be expended to augment recreational opportunities through the
improvement of parks in order to compensate for increased demand for City facilities and services
brought about by new residential and commercial development and the associated increase in
population.
In order to impose fees on new development, the City had to establish a “nexus” between the
development and the public facilities or services that would be funded by the fee, and also had to
establish a connection between the development and the amount of the fee that is being imposed on
the development.
The City retained the services of DMG-MAXIMUS (DMG) to create a “nexus” report (Parks and
Community Facilities Impact Fee Study, September 2001) to provide the legal framework for the
imposition of development fees. The report states that impact fees for Parks are intended to cover the
cost of land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood and district parks. The report goes
on to say, “Because of the difficulty of acquiring desirable park sites in Palo Alto, the City may
choose to expend impact fee revenue for improvements that enhance the capacity of existing parks to
serve additional demand, rather than to acquire more land.” Impact fees cannot be used for
maintenance or operating costs, and should be used on capital projects that enhance capacity.
Approved 2006-2011Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the Park
Development Impact Fees (Top Ten List)
After the Council established the development impact fee ordinance in 2002, staff worked with
community groups, recreation clubs, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to study strategies
for enhancing park and recreational facilities in order to mitigate for increased usage caused by new
development. A Commission-recommended prioritized list of ten park improvement projects
(Attachment C) to be funded by impact fees was approved by Council on March 12, 2007.
-Four of the ten projects have been completed:
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Heritage Park Children’s Playground Structure
Greer Park Phase IV Expansion Project
Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf.
-One project is in the process of being constructed:
ATTACHMENT D
Seale Park Restroom.
-Four projects are still to be completed:
El Camino Park Synthetic Soccer Field (conceptually scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Field Snack Shack/Restroom (CIP project PE-06007; scheduled for 2013)
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting (not scheduled)
Greer Soccer Field SyntheticTurf (not scheduled)
-One project was removed from the list due to safety concerns from the park neighbors:
Eleanor Pardee Park Restroom (part of CIP PE-06007; scheduled for 2009).
DISCUSSION
As of February 22, 2011, the balance of accumulated development impact fees for parks is $2.8
million. In deciding how much of this fund should be utilized on the El Camino Park Project, staff
analyzed the remaining projects on the Top Ten List, as well as other park projects that could
potentially be funded by Park Impact Fees.
Top Ten List projects to be funded by impact fee money:
1. El Camino Park Soccer (north) Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost
$809,000. User group demand for a synthetic turf soccer field is high. Artificial turf offers
significant increased capacity compared to natural grass turf. Staff recommends funding for
this project to be encumbered from the current balance of impact fees. (Please note this
project is for only one synthetic field for soccer and does not include the softball/lacrosse
field in artificial turf.)
2. Cubberley Snack Shack/Restroom. This project is projected to cost $220,000. Park visitor
and user group demand for a field restroom at Cubberley is high. Staff recommends that the
funding for this project be encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting. This project is projected to cost $130,000. User group
demand for lighting isn’t as high as the demand for a Cubberley field restroom. Staff
recommends deferring this project until the impact fee account acquires supplemental
necessary funds in the future.
4. Greer Park Soccer Field Synthetic Turf. This project is projected to cost $900,000. Greer
Park soccer fields were renovated in 2010. Palo Alto and Gunn High School both now have
synthetic turf soccer fields. Staff believes these fields address South Palo Alto’s need for a
synthetic turf soccer field. Staff recommends deferring or eliminating this project.
Other Park projects that could utilize impact fee money:
1. Magical Bridge (universal access) Playground at Mitchell Park. This project is projected
to cost $1.6 million. Funding is expected to come from the Friends of the Magical Bridge
Playground. The City is contributing the land. Staff recommends that the Friends group fund
this project through grants and other donations.
ATTACHMENT D
2. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails (once the landfill is closed and capped in 2012). There has
been no cost analysis on this project. While this project is not on the Top Ten List,
completion of the trail system at Byxbee Park is a Council directive called out in the
Baylands Master Plan. Park visitor demand for providing trails once the landfill closes is
extremely high. Staff recommends that funding for this project (place holder of $275,000) be
encumbered from the current balance of impact fees.
3. Additional projects are listed as a subheading on the attached Top Ten List. Due to
limited funds and other projects with higher demand, staff does not recommend encumbering
any money from the current balance of impact fees for these projects. These projects, and
any additional park projects that could be funded by impact fees, should be discussed at a
future Park and Recreation Commission meeting where the Commission could consider
creating a revised Top Ten List.
Staff recommendations for projects to be funded by impact fees (Please note the costs of
improvements for El Camino Park are estimates)
:
1. El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Soccer (north) Field $809,000 (this cost incorporates
the Utilities Dept. contribution that would have paid for natural grass)
2. Cubberly Snack Shack/ Restrooms $220,000
3. Phase II Byxbee Park Trails $275,000
Total Cost: $1,304,000
The remaining impact fee balance would be $1,496,000.
Conceptual Site Design
Siegfried, the landscape architect firm designing the El Camino Park Project, has incorporated the
Commission’s and staff’s recommendations regarding site features to create a conceptual site design
(Attachment D). This design illustrates the expanded parking lot, and the new decomposed granite
pathway with security lighting and four picnic tables. The decomposed granite pathway was
designed to allow for the possibility of fencing-off an approximately .5 acre dog park in the area
north of the soccer field. However, staff does not recommend a dog run for this area given the
limited amount of available space and the associated maintenance challenges. Also illustrated on this
final design is a new northern access point into the park. In order to install this access point, the
ATTACHMENT D
Transportation Department suggests using an enhanced mid-block crosswalk system with flashing
beacons in this area. The cost of these beacons is approximately $10,000. A beacon will need to be
installed on the median, which will need to be widened to 4’. The associated costs of installing this
access point would include the cost of two Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access ramps,
new pedestrian pathway, 4’ wide concrete landings, widened median, demolition, crosswalk striping,
flashing beacons and any grading that will be required to accommodate the ramps, landings and
pedestrian pathway. A cost analysis isn’t available at this time, however Siegfried will provide the
design and cost estimate so that this feature can be considered again at a future time. Due to funding
limitations and constraints on the use of impact fees, not all the design features illustrated in final
site design are possible at this time.
Staff’s Recommendation for Remaining Impact Fee Use ($1,496,000) at El Camino Park
Attachment A illustrates staff’s suggested use of the remaining impact fee balance at El Camino
Park. (The artificial soccer field was separated from this section because it was part of the Top-Ten
List. The recommended features in Attachment A are in addition to the artificial soccer field.) Staff’s
recommendation allows for both an artificial turf soccer (north) field and an artificial turf
softball/multi-use (south) field. The benefits of this option are increased capacity for the park to
accommodate field users, provide a better and safer playing surface, as well as a corresponding
increase in field brokering revenue. The 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission report “Got Space”,
identified field space as one of the most critical recreation needs of our community.
Other recommended features include expanding the parking lot, new decomposed granite paths,
picnic tables, storage shed, and electric conduit and footings which will allow for adding soccer field
lighting at a future time (once impact fees have replenished) without damaging the turf. It should be
noted that lighting for the soccer field has not yet been vetted with the community or residents who
might be affected by the lights.
Many of the Commission’s and staff’s El Camino Park improvement wish-list items (restroom/score
keeper building, replacement of existing asphalt pathways, additional northern access to the park,
and additional trees) do not meet the “increase park capacity” requirement for impact fee funds.
Staff will continue to research funding sources for these park improvements including future capital
improvement projects or bond measure-funded projects with an attempt to have the projects
completed while the park is under renovation.
Staff anticipates having more refined project costs to share with the Commission at the February 22,
2011 meeting.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The El Camino Park Improvement Project, as proposed by staff, would utilize $2,305,000 of the
total $2.8 million in the Park Development Impact Fee account. Staff recommends reserving
$495,000 in the Park Development Impact fund account to fund the Cubberly Restrooms ($220,000
in 2012/2013) and the Byxbee Trails ($275,000 in 2012/2013) projects. This would leave a balance
of zero for uncommitted in impact fee funds. The Nexus report projected $1.3 million annual
ATTACHMENT D
revenue from the Park Impact Fees (based on ABAG forecasts of population and employment). Here
are the actual impact fees collected since 2006:
FY 2006 $470,000
FY 2007 $1,041,000
FY 2008 $1,316,000
FY 2009 $218,000
FY 2010 $352,000
FY 2011 thru Jan’11 $112,000
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Suggested Park Development Impact Fees (impact fees) to fund the prioritized list of
improvements to El Camino Park
Attachment B: October 20, 2010, memorandum from Commission to Council
Attachment C: Capital Improvement Project List for Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
And approved 2006-2009 Top Ten Park Improvement Projects to be funded by the
Park Development Impact Fees
Attachment D: Final Site Design
PREPARED BY: Rob DeGeus and Daren Anderson_________________________
Park and Recreation Commission
El Camino Park Impact Fee Options
ATTACHMENT D
Improvements Costs Option A Option B
Design and Construction Management 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Remove Existing Trees 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$
Soccer Catchment Fence and Netting $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Rubber Mulch Areas $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000
New Storage Building $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000
Additional Parking $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000
Artificial Turf Soccer/Lacrosse Field
(north field)
$ 809,000 $ 809,000 $ 809,000
Artificial Turf Softball/Multi-Use Field
(south field)
$ 998,000 $ 998,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway (around soccer
field)
$ 11,000 $ 11,000
Extended D.G.. Pathway Lighting $ 23,000 $ 23,000
Soccer Field Lights (Option - Electric
Conduit Footings Only = $72,000)
$ 266,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000
Picnic Areas $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Total:2,612,500$ 2,360,500$ 1,420,500$
Park Development Impact Fee Fund 2,800,000$ 2,800,000$ 2,800,000$
Park Development Impact Fee Balance
187,500$ 439,500$ 1,379,500$
*Note: Edited to reflect updated costs as
of 5/11/11
Existing Trails CIP and
Benches and Signs CIP could
possibly fund pathways and
picnic tables
ATTACHMENT D
COSTS FOR EL CAMINO PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Green and * = improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use
PARK LANDSCAPE COMPONENT
PARK IMPROVEMENT
INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE
SOUTH FIELD
SOFTBALL FIELD AREA
* - SYNTHETIC SOFTBALL FIELD & SUB DRAIN 998,000$
CENTRAL AREA
NEW RESTROOM, PRE-ENGINEERED (INCLUDES DEMO OF EXISTING) 298,000$
SCOREKEEPER'S BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 22,000$
* STORAGE BUILDING, PRE-ENGINEERED 19,000$
* EXPANDED PARKING LOT W/ ISLANDS, TREES, TRASH ENCLOSURE 73,000$
NORTH FIELD
SOCCER FIELD AREA
* - SYNTHETIC SOCCER FIELD & SUB DRAIN 809,000$
* - REMOVE EXISTING TREES (REQUIRED WITH SYNTHETIC FIELD) 72,000$
* - SOCCER BALL CATCHMENT FENCE (8' CHAIN LINK & 42' NETTING) 175,000$
*RUBBER MULCH AREAS 12,000$
TREES 15,000$
DOG PARK 96,000$
PATHWAYS
*- EXTEND D.G. PATH AROUND SOCCER FIELD (DOES NOT INCLUDE LIGHTING) 11,000$
- D.G. PATH FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 4,000$
- CONCRETE PATH EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 29,000$
- CROSSWALK 96,000$
LIGHTING
* - EXTEND D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING AROUND SOCCER FIELD 23,000$
- D.G. PATHWAY LIGHTING FROM D.G. LOOP TO CROSSWALK 15,000$
- CONCRETE PATHWAY LIGHTING - EXTENSION TO CROSSWALK 31,000$
* - SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING (ALL CONDUITS, FOOTINGS, WIRE, & POLES), 4 LOCATIONS 266,000$
* PICNIC AREAS 24,000$
* Design Fees 75,000$
TOTAL 3,160,000$
Total Cost of the El Camino Park Improvements 3,160,000$
Improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 2,557,000$
Cost of Soccer Field Synthetic Turf - already on Top Ten List for Park Impact Fee Use (809,000)$
Remaining improvements that meet the criteria for Park Impact Fees Use 1,748,000$
Park Developmental Impact Fee Fund Balance 1,496,000$
Park Impact Fee shortfall to fund all impact fee related improvements (252,000)$
Cost of Improvements not fundable by impact Fees (603,000)$
SUMMARY
WORKING DRAFT
ATTACHMENT D
Green and * means in process or completed
Existing CIP's FY 2011- 2015
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
Existing CIP's Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvements 2012 X X 267,000$ General Fund
*Cubberley Gym Activity Room 2011 65,000$ General Fund
Completed - CIP
accommodated a
displaced tenant w/
revenue to offset
expenditure
Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical
Upgrades (Gyms & Auditorium)2013 X X X 1,300,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Restrooms 2011 X 300,000$ General Fund
*Foothills Park Interpretive Center
Improvements 2011 X X 210,000$ General Fund
Lucie Stern Mechanical Systems 2013-14 X X X 500,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Pool Locker Room 2015 X X 300,000$ Partnership
Ventura Building Improvements 2011-2012 X X X 690,000$ General Fund
Only $90,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Parks & Open Space
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Landscaping 2011-2015 X 700,000$ General Fund
Only $100,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
City Park Improvements 2012-2015 X X 1,170,000$ General Fund
*Cogswell Plaza Improvements 2011 X 150,000$ General Fund Irrigation
Foothills Park Road Improvements 2012 X 150,000$ General Fund
Hopkins Park Improvements 2012 X 95,000$ General Fund Irrigation
*Monroe Park Improvements 2011 X 250,000$ General Fund
*Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and
Repair 2011-2015 X X 500,000$ General Fund
Trail System. Only
$100,000 for FY 2011
has been approved
ATTACHMENT D
Open Space Lakes & Ponds
Maintenance 2012, 2014 X X X 110,000$ General Fund
*Open Space Trails & Amenities 2011-2015 X X 741,000$ General Fund
May also be augmented
w/ grants. Only $116,000
for FY 2011 has been
approved
*Park & Open Space Emergency
Repairs 2011-2015 X X 375,000$ General Fund
Only $75,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
*Park Restroom Installation 2011, 2013 X 440,000$ Impact Fees
Only $220,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
Rinconada Park Improvements 2012 X 775,000$ General Fund
Project deferred pending
Master Plan
Scott Park Improvements 2012 X 100,000$ General Fund
Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf
Replacement 2014 X 500,000$ General Fund
*Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 2011-2015 X 150,000$ General Fund
Only $30,000 for FY
2011 has been approved
*Ventura Community Center and
Park 2011 X 135,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT D
New Proposed CIP's FY 2012- 2016
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
New Proposed / For
Consideration Notes
Buildings & Facilities
Parks Maintenance and Public
Works Tree Maintenance Building
Improvements 2012 X X X 375,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Auditorium Roof 2015 X 151,000$ General Fund
Cubberley Site Wide Electrical
Replacement 2015-2016 X X X 1,150,000$ General Fund
Parks & Open Space
Magical Bridge Playground 2012 X 1,300,000$ Partnership Friends of PA Parks
Tree Well Irrigation 2013-2014 1,200,000$ General Fund
Pardee and Wallis Parks Safety and
Accessibility 2012 X 740,000$ General Fund
Backflow Device Installation
Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields
Netting 2012 50,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Tree Maintenance 2012-2016 X X 225,000$ General Fund
Rinconada Park Master Plan 2012-2013 40,000$ General Fund
Golf Course Cart Paths 2012, 2014 292,000$ General Fund
ATTACHMENT D
CIP Needs to be Addressed
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
F
Y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Top
T
e
n
200
7
Ess
e
n
t
ial
Main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Leg
a
l
Man
d
a
te
Esti
m
a
t
e
d
Cost
Pot
e
n
t
ial
Fun
d
i
n
g
Sou
r
c
e
Needs to be Addressed Notes
Land & Land Improvements
Buildings & Facilities
Mitchell Park Community Center
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 2012 X
Private &
Impact Fees
Parks & Open Space
El Camino Park 2012 X X
Synthetic Turf on Soccer
Filed on the Impact Fee
Top Ten list
Byxbee Park Phase II - Trails 2012-2013 X 275,000$ Impact Fees
Miscellaneous
ATTACHMENT D
Park Developmental Impact Fees Prioritization - from 2007
Com
m
i
s
s
i
on
Prio
r
i
t
y
Pub
l
i
c
N
e
e
d
Exte
r
n
a
l
Fun
d
i
n
g
Hea
l
t
h
&
Saf
e
t
y
Cou
n
c
il
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
Leg
a
l
l
y
Req
u
i
r
e
d
Imp
a
c
t
F
ee
Con
t
r
i
b
uti
o
n
/
Est
i
m
a
t
e
Notes
Parks
*Stanford / Palo Alto Playing Fields X X X X X 212,000$
*Heritage Park Play Structure XX X
*Greer Park Phase IV XXX X
*Seale Park Restroom X X X X 440,000$
Eleanor Park Restroom X X X X
Cubberley Field Snack Shack /
Restrooms X X X X 440,000$
Cubberley Tennis Court Lighting XXX
*Cubberley Field Synthetic Turf X X X X 850,000$
Greer Soccer Field Synthetic Turf X X X X TBD
El Camino Park - Soccer Field X X X X TBD
Other Potential Future Projects
Dog Parks: Expand Mitchell &
Hoover, New at Greer
BMX Track
Life Trail: Cubberley & Greer
New Land Purchase
Cubberley Fitness Center
Byxbee Park: Dog Park, Soccer
Fields, Covered Picnic Areas,
Enhanced Water Recreation
Facilities
Recreation Facilities: Gymnasium,
Skate Bowl Improvements, Additional
Tennis Courts at Greer, Bocce Ball
courts at Mitchell
Community outreach concluded restrooms at this park
was not desired.
$440,000 is for all park restroom installations, not just at
Cubberley.
Needs further community outreach
Complete. Total project budget of $850,000 was to be
funded by Impact Fees.
Complete. Total project budget $800,000
Complete
Complete. Total project budget $1,450,000
In process. $440,000 is for all park restroom
installations, not just at Seale Park.
Notes
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 1
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 22, 2011
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave
Commissioners Present: Deidre Crommie, Sunny Dykwel, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing, Pat
Markevitch, Daria Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Paul Losch
Others Present: Council Karen Holman
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do, Rob de
Geus
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: Chair Walsh was absent at the
beginning of the meeting and Vice-Chair Crommie filled in for her until her arrival.
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Burt Liebert spoke on adding a Community Garden in the
South area of Palo Alto. He would like to see an effort made to find an area to create garden
space in south Palo Alto.
Paul Heft spoke in support of the idea of creating garden space in South Palo Alto further
helping with climate change.
Annette Isaacson spoke in support of creating more garden space, specifically in the
Southern part of Palo Alto.
IV. BUSINESS:
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from January 25, 2011 regular meeting – The draft
minutes for the January 25, 2011 regular meeting were approved as amended.
Approved 5:0
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 2
2. Recommendation to approve an update to the Parks Rules and Regulations– Staff
Betts requested that Commissioner Hetterly report on this topic as the lead for the sub-
committee which consisted of staff Betts, Commissioners Markevitch, Hetterly and
Dykwel. Commissioner Hetterly discussed the main changes that were made consisting
of some clarifying language and edits to specific areas. Changes were made in the
section of R1-10A Lytton, Cogswell and King Plaza – allowing for 4 tables at Cogswell,
10 tables at Lytton, and 20 tables at King Plaza; clarified the language on R1-28
Smoking to read “any public places or any area”. Revised section R1-32 Dog Exercise
Area to conform to the hours of Park opening and closing hours. The committee also
discussed the need for the Commission to review the Community Garden rules for
future revisions at a later date, noting that it will need adequate time for Community
outreach and special considerations.
Commissioner Dykwel brought up a concern that came up in the Business Approvement
District Parking Committee meeting today. The issue was on the electrical control box
located at Lytton Plaza and how it is being utilized. Staff Betts referred to section R1-
34 Use of Utilities that would remedy the concern that the Parking Committee had. He
said that a policy would be set up through the Lucie Stern Community Center for the
check out of a key for the box. Commissioner Dykwel also mentioned that the
Parking Committee would also like some signage be placed at the site and on the City’s
web site with this information. Staff Betts felt that this request wouldn’t be a problem
to put in place.
Council Holman directed a question on the section of R1-26 Littering, wanting to know
if gum, cigarette butts, and spitting were considered littering under this section. Staff
Betts referring to Title 22 in the Municipal Code which provides a broad explanation on
what is constituted as littering. He also added that this violation held the largest fine
associated with it. Staff Anderson also provided feedback noting that he or any other
Ranger would not cite someone in an open space or park setting for spitting.
Motion made by Commissioner Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Dykwel.
The Parks and Recreation Commission approve the update to the Park Rules
and Regulations as presented. Approved 5:0
3. Presentation of the Capital Improvement Plan for Community Services Open
Space, Parks and Recreation, and consideration to recommend to Council the use
of Park Impact Fees to fund a portion of El Camino Park improvements related to
the El Camino Park Reservoir Project – Staff de Geus introduced the item and
provided a brief summary adding that the El Camino Park reservoir project has been to
the Commission five times with updates from the Utility department on the project. The
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 3
staff report provided in the Commissioners packet will be used to relay specifics to this
topic. He added that the Utility department is responsible for putting the park back to
its original condition before the project. This project provides an opportunity to possibly
make improvements using impact fees and other potential funding sources.
Staff will provide the Commissioners with possible scenarios for the use of these
impact fees using the suggestions the Commissioners provided at past meetings on this
topic. Staff Do, Business Manager for Community Services was introduced and went
over the CIP and the impact fees available with the Commission. Jennifer Cioffi,
Project Manager for Utilities went over the revised plans that included the
Commissioners changes. The Commissioners interjected questions and comments that
included questions on the pedestrian/bike path routes around and to the park, the field
sizes, parking, and when the expiration of the lease for the land was.
Staff Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks and Golf Division reviewed
the staff’s recommendation for the impact fees available for the use at El Camino Park
with the Commission. An updated cost assessment was handed out reviewing the
highlighted improvement areas that meet the criteria for Park Impact fee use. Staff
Anderson went over both option A & B, the improvements totaled $1,748,000 and
consisted of: ATTACHMENT
design fees = $75,000 *
removal of trees = $72,000 *
soccer catchment fence and netting = $175,000
rubber mulch areas = $12,000
new storage building = $19,000
additional parking = $73,000
artificial turf softball/multi-use field = $998,000
extended D.G. pathway (around soccer field) = $11,000
extended D.G. pathway lighting = $23,000
soccer field lights (option electric conduit footings only $72,000) = $266,000
picnic areas = $24,000
He explained to the Commission that staff was recommending Option A, which
consisted of adding artificial turf to the softball/multi use field, not including the DG
pathways around the soccer field, the pathway lighting, and the picnic areas. This
would use the total impact fees of $1,496,000. He added that there was the possibility of
using the existing Trails CIP and the Benches and Signs CIP to fund the pathway and
* See Attachment A for revised figures
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 4
picnic tables if the Commission wanted to. Option B included everything except the
artificial turf softball/multi-use field costing $998,000.
After staff Anderson’s discussion, oral communications was allowed from the public.
Ute Engelke spoke on her concern for the pedestrian access crossing Alma to Menlo
Park included in the presentation made by Jennifer Cioffi and would like to see this area
addressed further.
The Commissioners discussed the Options presented to them A & B and the costs
associated with these choices. The Commissioners then proceeded to make a motion.
Motion 1: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Dykwel. Failed 2:4
Motion 2: Commissioner Hetterly made a motion to accept Option B and omit
11,000, 23,000, and 24,000 using only $882,000 of the impact fees,
seconded by Commissioner Lauing. Failed 3:3
Motion 3: Commissioner Markevitch made a motion to accept Option A, seconded by
Commissioner Walsh Failed 1:5
Motion 4: Commissioner Lauing made a motion to accept Option B, seconded by
Commissioner Crommie Passed 4:2
4. Update on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force– Commissioner Markevitch
a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force reported on what they have been working on.
She provided a handout to the Commissioners and pointed out some details from it. She
informed the Commission that the City has a backlog of infrastructure going out to 2028
for half a billion dollars. The portion related to Parks and Open Spaces is 38 million
leaving 301 million in back log with a balance of 148 million for future infrastructure
needs. The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force separated themselves out into three
sub committees, the finance subcommittee, at ground subcommittee, and above ground
subcommittee. They are looking at how we got where we are, what we can do in the
future to prevent it. They meet every two weeks. More information can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/infrastructure_blue_ribbon_commissi
on.asp.
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 5
5. Recommend a PARC Commissioner represent the Commission at the Planning and
Transportation Commissioner Study session on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan -
Chair Walsh reviewed with the Commission the purpose of the item tonight. It
was discussed in past meetings that the PARC wanted to have a joint meeting with the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Upon some discussion with the Chair of the
Planning and Transportations Commission he informed us that they would be only
discussing the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan at their next meeting, February 23rd. The
Planning and Transportation Commission would be up for having a joint meeting when
we could schedule something. It was decided to elect a PARC representative to attend
the meeting on the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan. Commissioner Markevitch made a
motion to elect Commissioner Crommie, seconded by Commissioner Lauing.
Passed 6:0
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Commissioner Markevitch reported that she read that the League of Women Voters had
a meeting tonight to discuss the history of the Baylands, history of the Master Plan. The
next scheduled meeting is on the same night the PRC will meet. She suggested that
maybe a Commissioner could be sent. It was agreed to wait until agenda planning to
discuss.
2. Commissioner Dykwel reported as the Liaison for the school district. Subjects at the
meeting pertained to open enrollment, zoning, and teen mental health. She informed the
Commission that there is a report that they can get called the City Efforts and
Accomplishments Report 2010.
3. Commissioner Dykwel reported on the Mitchell Park Library, the Art Center renovation.
4. Bringing up Bicyclists – Free March 8th and March 15th
5. Teen Event – first high school event of its kind – “Ignite”, March 4th, Staff de Geus will
report back on it next month. *Looking for volunteers.*
6. Commissioner Crommie reported for the Urban Trails subcommittee.
7. Commissioner Crommie reported on an unsafe condition she encountered when she was
at the Arastradero Preserve with trails being closed and unsafe off road bicyclists.
8. Council Holman asked a question related to the mitigation for the golf course and when
it would be coming to the PRC. Staff de Geus responded by providing some details to
the levy and hiring an architect.
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING ON April 26, 2011
1. Baylands update
2. Bicycle Master Plan
3. Community Garden
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENT E
APPROVED
February 22, 2011 Approved Minutes 6
Adjourned at 10:44pm