Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07 City CouncilTHE SUBJECT OF cOU _C,L City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION:FINANCE COMMITTEE , PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1997 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS CMR:409:97 INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN MODULE 3 : PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Finance Committee and Planning Commission comment on the third module of the Infrastructure Plan dealing with Parks and Open Space. BACKGROUND On September 26, 1996, the Finance Committee approved an infrastructure work plan, which included a timetable for presenting infrastructure elements to the Committee. The first module, Buildings and Facilities, was submitted to the Planning Commission and Finance Committee on November 19, 1996. The second module, Traffic and Transportation, was submitted to the Finance Committee ai~d Planning Commission on July 15 and June 25, 1997, respectively. The third module, Parks and Open. Space, is submitted as two bound attachments to this report. The fourth module, Bridges, Parking Lots and Public Art, will be submitted in summer 1998. DISCUSSION Module 3 consists of: Attachment A, which is a discussion of the existing inventory, maintenance needs, capital replacement requirements, prioritization rationale and funding options; and Attachment B, which includes an Executive Summary (Volume 1) of Parks and Open Space infrastructure needs and a more detailed inventory of data sheets and maps of all City Parks and Open Space (Volume 2). The data sheets identify the component replacement and repair needs for each park and open space area. As with the previous modules, this report identifies a significant need for park and open space infrastructure work over the next 25 years. The City of Palo Alto owns or maintains CMR:409:97 Page 1 of 6 over 33 park and open space areas including Foothills Park, the Arastradero Preserve, the Byxbee Recreation Area as well as numerous City parks ranging in size from 0.2 acres (Lytton Plaza Park) to over 20 acres (Greer Park or Mitchell Park). In addition to City- owned athletic fields and tennis courts, the City maintains 3 athletic field areas and 25 tennis courts owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). This program may expand in the future as the "Build for Excellence Program" is implemented. Additionally, the City is responsible for maintdnance of perimeter landscaped sites associated with all City-owned buildings and community centers. This Infrastructure Management Report discusses two major areas of study. The first area is urban parks, where the .major components include irrigation systems, playgrounds, paving and park furniture. The other area of study is open space, Where protection and conservation of the rich natural resources of the coastal foothills (Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park) and Bay-front zones of the Palo Alto Baylands is the primary goal. The major components of open space include: trails, weed removal, paving, and small structures such as docks and boardwalks. Overall, City urban parks receive a fair rating. Although well maintained, many systems are original and due for life cycle replacement. Lighting in City parks is in need of attention. Where lighting does exist, fixtures are old and replacement parts are not available. Volume 2 of the report addresses the replacement of the entire lighting component at existing sites. For parks without lighting and those sites that may need security lighting, Adamson Associates has prepared an estimate amounting to $1.5 million, which represents the approximate cost to install security lights. The consultant advises that the estimate is very preliminary and recommends that a study be prepared by a lighting consultant to better defme the scope of work. Open space areas receive a fair to poor rating. The goal of the City’s open space activities is mainly habitat preservation and endangered species protection and maintenance of public access to allow public appreciation of the open space environment. This is achieved through a variety of maintenance functions which vary from site to site. An increased funding level for infrastructure work is required to meet the stated goals. At the Finance Committee’s request, staff will present new and enhanced building/facilities information during the Parks and Open Space meeting. In the future, staff will hold sessions with the Planning Commission and Finance Committee to recommend a methodology for prioritizing infrastructure work detailed in Modules 1 through 3 and appropriate f’mancing mechanisms for the highest priority work. Finance Committee and Planning Commission input into the ranking methodology and financing vehicles will be requested at that time. CMR:409:97 Page 2 of 6 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Each module of the infrastructure program has identified considerable funding needs for existing assets in need of repair or replacement. A fundamental policy decision in moving forward with a major infrastructure effort is that the City will have fewer resources to devote to new services, existing service levels, new facilities or expansion of existing facilities for expanding programs. Finite resources implies a need to choose, and in a City accustomed to high service levels, as indicated in a series of Levels of Service studies conducted in 1991 and 1992, choices will be challenging. While the City enjoys high services levels in the area of public safety, for example, it also faces new demands on resources. Examples of projects under consideration include adding more PAUSD athletic fields, implementing a new shuttle service, constructing a new safety building ,and initiating a Family Resource Center. As the Finance Committee proceeds in its review of the various infrastructure modules, it will need to weigh the competing policy issues before allocating resources among existing and entirely new programmatic needs. Because the proposed infrastructure management system is intended to set a plan for the next 10 to 25 years of infrastructure changes and improvements, staff has reviewed policies from both the 1980 adopted Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to Council for approval. The following are policies and programs that relate to maintenance of existing parks or open space in the city. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: 1980-1995 Schools and Parks Element Policy 5: Make parks safer for users and less prone to vandalism and other problems. Program 9: Provide for adequate visibility from surrounding areas in the design and landscaping of parks. Urban Design. Program 12: Develop a comprehensive tree management plan for the City which emphasizes maintenance. Program 24: Preserve the wooded character at Palo Alto’s north gateway on E1 Camino Real. Environmental Resources Program 8: Control access to environmentally sensitive public baylands and the foothills. areas in the CMR:409:97 Page 3 of 6 Palo Alto 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Policy L-14: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Program L-5:Study the feasibility of using I~ublic and private funds to provide and maintain landscaping and public spaces such as parks and plazas within commercial areas. Policy L-49:Encourage the preservation of significant historic buildings owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such buildings to be altered to meet contemporary needs, provided that the preservation standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied. Policy L-66: Transportation Policy T-15: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. Policy T-18: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Natural Environment Policy N-l: Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. Program N-2:Examine and improve management practices for natural habitat in open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City Fire, Park, Public Works, and Utilities Department vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. Policy N-2:Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate and maintain an open space system extending from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay. CMR:409:97 Page 4 of 6 Community Services and Facilities Policy C-23" Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. and Policy C-25" Study and recommend methods of private and public financing for improved park maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction. FISCAL IMPACT This report identifies $29.7 million, in 1997 dollars, for replacement and rehabilitation work over the next 25 years. The $29.7 million primarily includes: $24.0 million for City parks and open space improvements; $0.6 million for PAUSD school sites; $2.0 million for perimeter landscaped sites around City buildings and facilities, $2.7 million for Cubberley athletic fields, and $0.2 million for studies and inspections. The first column below shows a $12.2 backlog of infrastructure work. The backlog consists of infrastructure identified as being in poor condition, and that should be corrected now if funding were available. Module 3: Parks and Open Space Financial Impact ($ooo’s) Backlog Years 1-5 Years 6-10 I Years 11-25 Replacement/Rehabilitation Ca ~ital Costs Parks and Open Space School Sites Building Sites Cubberley Fields Studies/Inspections $1,673 $ 291 Existing Inventory Total $ 8,434 $ 385 $1,093 $2,315 $12,227 $13,451 $ 385 $ 1,561 $ 2,315 $ 30 $17,742 $ 60 $2,024 $8,960 $ 25o $ 175 $ 36O $ 150 $9,895 Total Cost~ . $24,084 $ 635 $ 2,027 $ 2,675 $ 240 $29,661 The City has traditionally funded parks and open space projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. The City has augmented funding for parks and open space infrastructure in recent years, with an average of $0.8 million per year spent over the last 10 years through the Capital Improvement Program. This report identifies an average yearly need of $1.5 million over the next 10 years, nearly double the funding levels of the past decade. To meet these needs, alternative financing mechanisms may be requi.red. One of the alternative financing vehicles is a Parks and Open Space Assessment District. Proposition 218 has made the requirements for establishing assessment districts more CMR:409:97 Page 5 of 6 rigorous. The proposition requires approval of an assessment district by a majority vote of affected property owners who may be assessed only for the specific benefits attributable to their property. Although the "specific benefit" requirement may make a Parks and Open Space Assessment District more difficult to implement than in the past, this financing option is still a~cailable to cities. In addition to an assessment district, the City can u~e general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, and the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve established in the 1997-98 budget. The Infrastructure Reserve is the most flexible and practical financial option for Parks and Open Space work, since general obligation bonds are more suitable for new projects, and certificates of participation are recommended for building improvements. Depending upon the level of funding provided, additional staff’mg to implement enhanced infrastructure efforts may be required. Staff’lng requirements will be evaluated when funding is determined. ATTACItMENTS A -Module 3, Parks and Open Space B-Parks and Open Space System Study (Two Volumes - Copies are available for review at the Public Works Department counter, 6th floor Civic Center and City libraries) PREPARED BY:John Carlson, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works Jim Harrington, Senior Engineer Joe Saccio, Senior Financial Analyst REVIEWED BY:Glenn S. Roberts, Director of Public Works Paul Thiltgen, Director of Community Services Melissa Cavallo, Acting Director of Administrative Services REPORT COORDINATOR: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~Y" ARRISON ~ ~iManager ~ CMR:409:97 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT A MODULE 3 : PARKS AND OPEN SPACE EXISTING INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto parks and open space inventory consists of over 30 parksand 4 open space areas. The City parks, which range in size from 0.2 acres (Lytton Plaza Park) to over 20 acres (Greer Park or Mitchell Park), are typically located in areas accessible by community user groups or residential neighborhoods. The urban parks are multi-use in design, serving varied interests and uses. The typical City park includes playgrounds, picnic facilities and benches, athletic fields and paved surfaces for sports such as tennis and basketball courts. The open space areas are larger in size (600-2,000 acres), and are located on the periphery of the City with a different purpose altogether. The primary mission of the open space areas is the protection of natural resources - with habitat preservation and endangered species protection at the forefront of infrastructure priorities. Public access and enjoyment of the open space is also a priority. The preservation activities include removal of invasive plants and weeds, and the maintenance of roads, parking lots and pathways. The City also maintains 10 athletic fields, 15 soccer fields, and 32 tennis courts. The City and School district equally share maintenance and capital costs of specific athletic fields and tennis courts located on school grounds. Additionally, the City is responsible for the landscaped perimeter sites associated with each City owned building. CAPITAL REPLACEMENT/RENOVATION Over the last six months staff, with the assistance of a consultant, have reviewed the condition of all City parks and open space areas. This review concludes that the average ,City park areas receive a fair rating. Although well-maintained, many systems are original and due for life cycle replacement. The open space areas receive a fair to poor rating. Significant funding is needed for the maintenance of the parking lots and trails that allow greater public access, and the weed abatement effort that preserves the native plants and fauna. The average age of the City’s park and open space inventory is approaching 30 to 40 years. Consequently, it is recommended that a program be initiated, as part of the infrastructure process, to address the replacement of parks and open space infrastructure items as they reach the end of their useful life. This is necessary to avoid unexpected system failures and uneconomically high levels of maintenance. Attachment B, Volume I, presents a schedule of improvements by park and open space sites as well as by infrastructure component. Examples of "components" include irrigation systems, playgrounds, and trail maintenance. This information was developed from in- house maintenance data and a physical survey of the parks and open space areas where the current condition and remaining life span of components was determined. The information is presented in two formats. The first format (Tables 1A and 1B) provides a proposed funding list of parks and open space sites with their estimated remaining useful life modestly adjusted to provide a uniform, annual funding level over time. The second format (Tables 2A and 2B) lists components arid sites with unadjusted (i.e., shows replacement and rehabilitation costs in the year in which a component should be replaced) life spans and varying funding levels over time. Projects in Table 2B have been prioritized to guide staff in identifying a program that meets future funding availability. In implementing this program, the timing and priority of each infrastructure component would be reevaluated with each Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. For example, once a high priority component in a park is selected for repair or replacement, several other lower priority components in that park or open space area may be packaged into the same CIP to minimize future disruption to the public. In summary, this report identifies a capital replacement need over the next ten years of approximately $15.1 million for parks and open space needs. As a comparison, the City has spent approximately $7.5 million over the last ten years on parks and open space projects. In addition, the report identifies $2.6 million for renovation of selected school athletic fields and landscaped sites next to City buildings. To maintain an updated management report, additional future studies and inspections are recommended. They are estimated to cost approximately $0.09 million over the next 10 years. Preventive ...MAINTENANCE/ON-GOING MAINTENANCE Preventive and on-going maintenance of components with values generally less than $25,000 are accomplished through the operating budget. Examples of work performed by parks and open space staff include: ® Minor irrigation, turf and landscape renovation. Minor pathway repair and trail maintenance. Renovation or repair to benches, signs and fences. Minor pavement repair of parking areas and tennis courts~ In addition, approximately 75 percent of the playgrounds and 30 percent of the irrigation systems have been replaced to-date through the enhanced CIP program. The maintenance budget for the Parks and Open Space is $3.4 million and $0.7 million, respectively. The budget includes funding for in-house and contract maintenance personnel, supplies, materials and minor equipment. There are 24.1 FTE in Parks Services and 3.0 FTE in the Open Space maintenance function. ~WOR ENHANCED FACILITIES. It was not within the scope of this study to address new and enhanced needs for parks and open space facilities. However, in the future, staff will submit to the Finance Committee a separate City Manager’s Report listing new facilities and building needs Such new projects include the following: Greer Park expansion (Phase 4, Master Plan) PAUSD athletic fields expansion Safety lighting in City parks Foothills Park campsites (Towle Campground expansion) The cost for expanded and new facilities could easily exceed $ 5.0 million. PRIORITIZATION RATIONALE Staff used the following criteria for prioritizing parks and open space work. major overall categories are ranked as follows: The three Capital Replacement/Renovation. This category is critically important in addressing the timely replacement of parks and open space components to avoid failure of systems and costly interim maintenance. This criterion is discussed in more detail in 1A, 1B, and 1C below. New and Enhanced. Although important in responding to program changes, this category is not considered as high a priority as capital replacement and maintenance which address the needs of the City’s existing infrastructure inventory. o Comprehensive Plan. This category provides an additional selection element in reviewing the big picture. Should any two projects have equal weighting, ’the project that meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan would receive a higher weighting. The requirements of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes land use and community goals and services. Due to the significant funding needs identified in this report, staff used additional criteria or subcategories to prioritize capital replacement and renovation work. These criteria allow a pragmatic approach to compare sites and components across park and open space sites (e.g., parks playgrounds versus open space trail rehabilitation). The goal is to develop a list of infrastructure work that could become the basis of a short or medium-term Capital Improvement Program. The list could then be adjusted to coincide with the City’s chosen funding level or f’mancing option. 1A. Health, safety, conservation and regulatory issues - Parks and open space areas that have significant health, safety and regulatory requirements would receive the highest ranking. In addition, open space habitat preservation and the protection of endangered species, a primary goal of an open space program, would receive a high ranking: lB. Importance of the site to the City or community and general condition - The importance of the site has been ranked somewhat subjectively. If asked to rank all City parks in terms of importance, neighborhood parks would be predicted to be the top choice of members of the community adjacent to these sites. Overall, however, community parks would probably receive a higher number of votes based on their citywide appeal. In addition, large community park sites (i.e., Rinconada or Mitchell) are in poor condition and have high visibility. School District sites, f~r which the City sharesmaintenance .responsibility, are treated as community park sites given their high, broad usage, and poor condition. Rankings for open space sites reflect staff’s view that sites with the poorest condition and greater importance to the community receive a higher rank. 1C. People affected - This identifies the importance of a component relative to the number of people affected by the failure of the component. An example would be the repair of a bench versus repair of a failed irrigation component within a soccer field. It is clear that closure of the soccer fields would affect a greater number of people than a bench needing repair. As a result of the prioritization rationale discussed above, larger community park work tends to receive a higher ranking than neighborhood park work. It is important to note that neighborhood parks have received significant attention and funding in recent years. Although neighborhood parks require additional work, the larger parks, such as Rinconada and Mitchell, have numerous infrastructure components that have reached the end of their useful lives. With regard to open spaces, Foothills Park work tends to have a higher ranking than other open space areas. This is based on the criteria cited above, especially the criteria stressing open space habitat preservation and capital replacement and renovation. FINANCING OPTIONS The table below provides a concise description of financing options available for Parks and Open Space infrastructure work and a matrix displaying those options. They include General Obligation (GO) Bonds, Certificates of Participation (COPs), the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve, and Special Assessment District Bonds. Although GO Bonds and COPs can be used to fund improvements in this module, they are better suited for new, high profile projects such as a library (GO Bonds) or to rehabilitate an existing building (COP). Since the City has traditionally .funded Parks and Open Space projects on a pay-as- you-go basis, accelerating the time frame for eliminating the backlog would require additional general funds or alternative financing such as an assessment district. 4